BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Bill

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session on 22 January 2016, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of Bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Broadband

Paula Sherriff: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Julie Elliott: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of availability of broadband to businesses in the north-east.

Sajid Javid: I recently announced a joint review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of business broadband to ensure that businesses are able to access the affordable, high-speed broadband that they need and deserve. More than 250,000 homes and businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber, and more than 100,000 in the north-east, have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s investment programme.

Paula Sherriff: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. If the Department is on track to meet its targets, why does Ofcom analysis predict that by 2017, when 95% of all UK premises will have superfast broadband, around 18% of small and medium-sized enterprises, including many in my constituency, will not? Why are so many businesses being left behind, and does the Secretary of State accept that his plans show a lack of ambition?

Sajid Javid: No, I do not. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that superfast broadband coverage throughout the UK has increased from 45% of the country in 2010 to almost 90% now, and that we are fully on target to reach 95% by 2017. It is important that we keep looking at new ways to extend coverage through fixed wireless and mobile, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Julie Elliott: A senior adviser at the Institute of Directors has said that they expect the Government to meet the universal service obligation, but that is only because the bar is set so low. How are the Government going to provide the physical infrastructure to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of digital innovation in business? Will the Secretary of State also answer the question about the lack of provision for SMEs, which he did not address?

Sajid Javid: We are extending broadband coverage throughout the country and it includes hundreds of thousands of SMEs, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We are on target, and she may like to know that our USO is twice as high as is recommended in the EU. Already, despite the fact that there is more work to do—I am the first to accept that—we have wider coverage than most of our large EU partners, we have higher average speeds and we have the lowest average price.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Ofcom solution to the desperately poor penetration of fibre to premises in the UK is to open up access to BT’s ducts and poles, but that would require reasonable rates of access as well as a clear network map of those ducts and poles. What can the Secretary of State do to make sure that BT complies with those requirements?

Sajid Javid: I have read Ofcom’s report carefully and met Ofcom a number of times about that issue, and I have every reason to think that BT will comply. If that does not happen, of course we will look at what action we can take.

Regional Growth

James Morris: What recent steps he has taken to (a) promote regional growth and (b) create a midlands engine.

Sajid Javid: We are absolutely committed to regional growth. We recently launched a further round of growth deals, and the March Budget highlighted the Government’s support for the midlands engine. It includes a £250 million midlands engine investment fund, new enterprise zones, and a devolution deal for Greater Lincolnshire worth £450 million.

James Morris: One of the keys to growth in the black country part of the west midlands, which I represent, is greater collaboration between business and further education colleges. Halesowen College and Sandwell College both excellently serve my constituency. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the principals of Halesowen and Sandwell Colleges to talk more about how to reduce the skills gap in the black country, to promote further growth in the region?

Sajid Javid: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. One of the reasons we have seen a 50% fall in his constituency is that he has been promoting just that type of collaboration. I enjoyed visiting Halesowen College with him last year to learn about the advanced science, engineering and technology centre, and of course I will be more than happy to meet him and college representatives.

Keith Vaz: Will the Secretary of State join me and other Leicestershire MPs as well as many throughout the world in congratulating Leicester City football club on winning the premier league yesterday? Does he agree that this will boost jobs not just in Leicester but in the midlands region, and not just for  those interested in football but for those in tourism? Does he accept that rather than Red Leicester, it is actually Blue Leicester?

Sajid Javid: I like the sound of Blue Leicester—I like it very much—but let me congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and, most of all, his constituents on their stunning victory last night, which I think the whole nation is celebrating. I suggest he make the most of it while he can.

Amanda Milling: Regional growth and the midlands engine are reliant on businesses such as those in Cannock Chase that are investing and exporting. I visited a business in Cannock on Friday that is looking to grow, but faces difficulty in getting access to finance from the bank it has banked with for years, and this has resulted in its switching banks. Will my right hon. Friend outline what measures the Government have taken to improve access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I will highlight two things. First, there is the local growth fund: almost £8 billion has already been allocated, and the Chancellor talked in the last Budget of a further £4 billion by the end of this Parliament. There is also the launch of the midlands engine investment fund: hundreds of millions of pounds will be allocated to small businesses, including those in Cannock Chase.

Chris Leslie: But if we are to get all these visitors to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and across the east and the west midlands and we are to get the midlands engine moving, will the Secretary of State talk to his colleagues about infrastructure investment more generally, because we are certainly losing out in the east midlands, with only £37 per head of rail investment compared with £294 per head in London?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of infrastructure investment. It is because we have a strong economy that, under this Government, we have a programme of £300 billion of investment over the next few years. That of course includes the midlands, with the investment in the main line and in HS2. However, there is always more we can do, and I am very happy to hear new ideas.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to praise the work of the local enterprise partnerships in promoting the economy of the west midlands, particularly the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP, of which Lichfield is a member? Will my right hon. Friend clarify, however, what will be  the role of the LEPs and what will be the role of the midlands engine, which is about to appoint or has appointed a new chairman, in helping to promote the regional economy?

Sajid Javid: I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of LEPs throughout the UK, but especially that of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP, not least because it covers my constituency. I have seen the work that it has achieved, particularly under its chairman, Andy Street, and it is very commendable. The LEPs will  work with local authorities throughout the midlands to really fire up the midlands engine, which means co-operation on things such as infrastructure, trade and skills.

John Spellar: A couple of weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about the possible closure of the British Gas Oldbury site, with the loss of 700 jobs. In his reply, the Prime Minister assured me:
“We will make sure that a ministerial taskforce is available to talk to the company and the local community and to provide assistance in terms of retraining and other things.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 917.]
Imagine my disappointment on being told that there will be no ministerial taskforce, but that Ministers will have regular contact with a taskforce to be set up by the local authority. I do not think that that matches up to the assurance from the Prime Minister. There needs to be a real drive to keep or to replace these jobs, so when is BIS going to deliver on the Prime Minister’s assurance?

Sajid Javid: Job losses, whenever they are announced, are regrettable, as they of course are in this case, which is why we must do everything we can. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that soon after the Prime Minister said that, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise and the Minister for Employment had a meeting with a managing director from British Gas. I understand that the redundancies are not final yet—the consultation period is still going on—so let us hope that they are not as bad as those that have been seen. We will continue to do whatever we can, and that includes contact with the company.

Adult Skills Provision

Colleen Fletcher: What his Department’s strategy is for the funding of adult skills provision in FE colleges for the remainder of this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Boles: We are protecting the adult education budget in cash terms, extending subsidised loans to advanced learners and introducing an apprenticeship levy, so funding will be 40% higher in cash terms by 2020.

Colleen Fletcher: We are told that the adult skills budgets will be devolved to regions that have secured a devolution deal. Will the Minister assure me that those budgets will be ring-fenced and not subjected to cuts?

Nicholas Boles: We will certainly be ensuring that the budgets are spent on skills training, but the whole point of devolving them is to give the local combined authorities the power to decide which are the skills priorities in their area, not to have them asking me for permission to spend on a skills need that they have identified.

Maria Miller: Area reviews are an important way of understanding local adult education needs. Will the Minister be encouraging such reviews to look at the needs of women returning to work after caring responsibilities, so that they can use the further education sector to really develop their skills and add to the productivity of our country?

Nicholas Boles: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great opportunities in the apprenticeships programme is that apprenticeships are all age. For women who have perhaps taken a career break, or just want to change their profession, an apprenticeship is an opportunity to gain new skills while also earning an income so that they can forge a great career.

Nicholas Dakin: When will the Government be publishing guidelines on how skills budgets might be devolved in those areas where that devolution is being looked at?

Nicholas Boles: That will depend on when exactly the devolution deal is done. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in our own area of Greater Lincolnshire that deal is reasonably well advanced; in other parts of the country, the deals are less well advanced. Fundamentally, it is pretty simple: we want authorities to be commissioning from their local colleges the adult skills provision that they believe their area can benefit from.

Andrew Bridgen: Although the budget is enhanced, it is only a finite amount. Given that, it is important that it is targeted at where it will have the most effect. Does the Minister agree that those funds are best targeted at young adults, the low-skilled and those actively seeking work?

Nicholas Boles: I agree with my hon. Friend that those will often be the best targets. What is even more important is that his local combined authority, and those of other hon. Members, are best placed to identify the particular groups or industries with particular needs, and then respond accordingly.

Roger Mullin: Further education colleges in Scotland are the largest providers of apprenticeship education. Will they therefore be exempt from the apprenticeship levy?

Nicholas Boles: The apprenticeship levy will apply to all employers throughout the United Kingdom with a payroll bill of more than £3 million. Of course, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any employer in Scotland that is paying the levy from putting pressure on whoever is in government in Scotland after this Thursday to make sure that they increase their investment in apprenticeships, as we are doing in England.

Gordon Marsden: Tucked away in the autumn statement was the Government’s admission that they will be cutting—their term is “efficiencies”—£360 million of adult skills non-apprenticeship funding between now and 2020. Does the Minister not see that there is a paradox in the Government going hell for leather on English and maths for young people’s apprenticeships while failing to ring-fence funding for basic skills, when England has 9 million people of working age with low literacy and numeracy, and we are ranked bottom in literacy and next-to-bottom in numeracy among 23 developed nations? Last year, the Government cut the adult skills budget across England by 18%. Now they have scrapped plans for advanced post-24 skills. Why is the Government’s key White Paper addressing technical skills shortages being delayed? Is all this a strategy or a wing and a prayer?

Nicholas Boles: There was a lot of detail in the hon. Gentleman’s question, but not a lot of clarity, so here is the clarity: we are increasing total funding available for further education by 40% in cash terms during this Parliament. He talks about last year because he does not like this year, and that is because this year’s spend tells the story of a Government investing in skills for the future.

Apprenticeships

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to encourage businesses to take on apprentices.

Nicholas Boles: We have removed employers’ national insurance from apprentices under the age of 25, and are introducing an apprenticeship levy for larger employers, which will increase the budget for apprenticeship training in England to £2.5 billion in 2019-20.

Andrew Stephenson: To mark national apprenticeship week, I visited Silentnight in Barnoldswick, whose award-winning apprenticeship scheme has already created over 40 full-time jobs. Does the Minister agree that companies such as Silentnight, which is seeing real year-on-year sales growth at the moment because of its apprentices, are great examples to employers across Pendle and the rest of the UK?

Nicholas Boles: I particularly welcome the example of Silentnight in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because it is really important to understand that apprentices add value to their employers—they are not just receiving training; they are also adding value. We consistently hear employers saying that apprentices bring energy, ideas, enthusiasm and new contacts to their businesses.

Hannah Bardell: It is becoming increasingly clear that the systems and processes needed to implement the apprenticeship levy are far from ready. Many see it as a tax on jobs. The Scottish National party has tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to seek a full review, and the CBI has called for a radical rethink. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and representatives of the oil and gas sector recently. He well knows the continuing issues with double charging. Will he heed these calls and delay implementation of the apprenticeship levy until the systems and processes are ready and business has been fully engaged?

Nicholas Boles: No, we will not be delaying, because for decades no Government adequately gripped the problem we have in this country, which is that businesses invest too little in skills development. That is what holds our productivity back. As it happens, since the CBI’s survey, and since other surveys of the same kind, we have published a detailed technical guide for employers on how the apprenticeship levy will work. I encourage the hon. Lady and her constituents to look at it. If they have any further questions I am happy to answer them, but the levy will be coming in in April 2017, and we will be fixing Britain’s skills problems.

Peter Heaton-Jones: On Friday I attended an event to mark the first anniversary of the extremely successful Care Academy, which is a unique collaboration in my constituency between Petroc College  and the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust. In effect, it provides apprenticeships for young people wanting to get into the health profession. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the excellent students who have been through the Care Academy in the first year, and does he agree that it is an extremely worthwhile programme for the future?

Nicholas Boles: It is well known that we have huge skills needs in the care sector and the NHS, and that kind of academy is exactly what we need to see more of, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency, Petroc College and others are setting an example.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister will know that the number of BIS staff working on the apprenticeship programme is due to fall massively by 2020. What assessment has he made of his Department’s capacity to deliver the apprenticeship target?

Nicholas Boles: The number of BIS staff who will be working on the apprenticeship programme will fall, but only because we are setting up a new, independent institute for apprenticeships that will take over many of the jobs that are currently undertaken by BIS staff. That institute will be in the control of the employers who are paying the levy. I think that is the right way to do it and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

Ben Howlett: Businesses such as Rotork, BMT and Designability in Bath have taken on hundreds of new apprentices since the scheme first started, enabling young people to gain the best qualifications for a really great career. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that although the Government are doing a great deal to encourage older people into apprenticeship schemes, a cultural shift is required to encourage even more into the scheme in the future?

Nicholas Boles: I think my hon. Friend is right about that, because there is a common misconception that apprenticeships are somehow only really appropriate for school leavers, whereas the reality is that they offer opportunities to people at all stages in their lives, and indeed at all stages in their careers. It is not just for new recruits to an employer; it can be for somebody who has been working for an employer for several years but has discovered that they have the potential to develop.

Employing people on the Autistic Spectrum

Lisa Cameron: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the support and guidance for businesses on employing people on the autistic spectrum.

George Freeman: Through our one nation reforms, we are committed to a labour market that allows everyone to fulfil their obligations and opportunities wherever and whoever they are, including those with autism. That is why the Prime Minister launched the Disability Confident campaign, and why we have continued to spend over £100 million a year on the Access to Work scheme, helping over 36,000 people with disabilities into work. We have published guidance to employers on  employing people with autism, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise recently met Autism UK and the all-party group on autism.

Lisa Cameron: The autism employment gap is much larger than the disability employment gap, with only 15% in full-time employment and 26% of graduates remaining employed. We are losing the potential that people with autism spectrum disorder can offer to our economy. What specific programmes and support will be provided to employers and jobseekers to close this startling gap, and will the Government produce disaggregated data to evidence progress?

George Freeman: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I pay tribute to her work on this. As I said, we are investing substantially in this area, and through the Disability Confident campaign, we are actively engaging with employers of different sizes and sectors to promote access to work for people with autism. We launched the latest part of that campaign on World Autism day, on 2 April. We do not think that quotas are the right way to go. We want to encourage employers and we want those with autism to know that good employers will recognise and reward their skills.

Scott Mann: Many skill-based jobs are perfect for people suffering from autism, with computer coding and programming being a prime example, given the rigid structure of the work. Will the Minister work with me to help promote coding within Cornwall and to support people who wish to get involved in skill-based work?

George Freeman: I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend and with other Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions, and I commend him for his leadership on this excellent initiative.

Barry Sheerman: When will the Government follow the example of Leicester City football club and try to get into the premiership on this question? There are so many talented people on the autism spectrum desperate and waiting for a job, many of them in regions such as Yorkshire, yet we are faced with uncertainty for everyone—apprentices, people with autism—because of this great cloud that is the possibility of our leaving the EU. No one is investing or hiring.

George Freeman: Even for me, it would be a stretch to delve into the EU on this question. The Government are investing £100 million a year in the Access to Work scheme, helping 36,000 people with disabilities into work, so we are absolutely committed to this agenda. People with autism have a lot to offer in the workplace, and we are serious about giving them opportunities.

Hannah Bardell: April is Autism Awareness month, and earlier this month, The Economist led with an article on how the talents and skills of people with autism and on the autistic spectrum are potentially being wasted. It said that if businesses were encouraged to take more friendly approaches to recruitment and to deploy the appropriate skills, we could have many more people in the workplace. We had a fascinating  and moving debate last week on autism, during which many Members shared moving experiences of their own children, including my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). Will the Minister meet me and a cross-party delegation to discuss how we can get businesses properly to mark the number of people on the autism spectrum and how we can work together more across the House?

John Bercow: I was going to invite the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate, until I realised that in fact she had had it.

George Freeman: I will restrict my answer, Mr Speaker. The right meeting would be with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whose Department leads on this issue, and with the Ministers for Skills and for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. We are actively engaging with all the relevant charities on this issue.

John Bercow: I hope that the hon. Lady is content with that answer, although, whether she is or is not, she has had it.

Digital Industries

Nick Brown: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of a UK withdrawal from the EU on the UK’s digital industries.

Ed Vaizey: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to take Question 7 with Question 14, if that is okay.
We think that leaving the EU would be an absolute disaster for Britain’s digital industries.

John Bercow: It would be okay, if the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) were here, but he isn’t, so it isn’t, but we will proceed unabashed by his absence, because we have the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

Nick Brown: The digital sector is very important to the north-east of England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) made clear earlier. Some 25,000 jobs are now directly involved in the sector. What reassurance can the Minister give the House that there will be market access arrangements with our partners in the EU in the event of a no vote?

Ed Vaizey: I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that reassurance, and that is what really worries me about our leaving the EU. Not only does the digital industry provide the 25,000 jobs he mentioned but overall it represents about 7% of the UK’s gross value added. We are at the heart of negotiating the digital single market, which will give our digital industries even more opportunities, and that is why we must stay in.

Andrew Percy: I was at a breakfast meeting this morning with digitech companies from Vancouver in British Columbia that are here on an inward trade mission, looking at investing in the UK.  Does the Minister agree that this dangerous and damaging remain campaign, which is based wholly on a fear of leaving the European Union that is not justified, is going to do great damage? Has he done any assessment of how much damage is being done to investment by the talking down of this country by those who want us to remain in servitude to the EU?

Ed Vaizey: I hear what my hon. Friend has to say, but I wish the leave campaign would stop running this terrible fear campaign. I am confident that we are going to stay in Europe and continue to attract investment. I am pleased to hear that our Canadian trade envoy, to which I gather my hon. Friend had access, shows us how even as members of the European Union, we can still negotiate and engage globally with many other countries. Being a member of the European Union does not prevent us from working with countries outside the EU, and the leave campaign’s fear campaign has to stop saying it does.

Chi Onwurah: On Sunday, the European Union slashed roaming charges by 75%, and they will be abolished altogether next year. That is a huge boost to British businesses with European ambitions as well as to Leicester City fans, now with Champions league travel to plan. The UK is Europe’s biggest digital economy. We buy and sell more online than any other country. Would the Minister like to estimate how long it would take him, even with his fabled charm, to renegotiate all our international digital agreements in the event of a Brexit, and what our £118 billion digital economy would do in the meantime?

Ed Vaizey: I think it would take ages—it would take absolutely years to renegotiate. I recently returned from a G7 meeting in Japan, proving again that the leave campaign’s fear campaign is completely wrong. I was able to spend some time with the European vice-president, talking about the great opportunities that the digital single market presents. It was a lot of fun. We want to be part of that digital single market—growing for Britain.

Steel Industry

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment he has made of the most significant threats to the UK steel industry.

Sajid Javid: Global overproduction and reduced demand has caused steel prices to collapse, eroding the profitability of steel producers across the world. We have acted decisively to help UK steel companies by delivering lower electricity prices, tackling unfair trade, updating procurement guidance and introducing flexibility in emissions regulations.

Tom Blenkinsop: One of the main issues in the current steel crisis is time. The Greybull deal took nigh on 12 months, and that time was allocated to ensure that a better buyer, as opposed to the original potential purchaser, came forward. What has the Secretary of State done and what conversations has he had with Tata to ensure that it will be a responsible vendor and allow enough   time to encourage not just buyers, but the best buyers, to come forward? Where does he see strip and tube in the future? Does he still see Tata remaining in situ in some form in both those sectors?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of time for securing a viable long-term future for the Tata strip business. I have had a number of discussions, as have my officials, with Tata. It has been very straightforward in being reasonable about time—of course, it does not have an unlimited amount of time, but it has shown through the long products business that it understands that things take time.

Craig Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach—particularly to Tata and Neath Port Talbot in south Wales, but also to Celsa Steel in Cardiff. Some £76 million has already been given in compensation to high-energy users and the Government are projected to spend, I hope, £100 million this year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that and clarify what future support we can give to high-energy steelmakers?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of Celsa Steel, which has made a substantial investment in the UK, employing hundreds of people, and we want to see that continue. The price of electricity is very important to Celsa and other steel producers. We have already extended the compensation available and we have announced that we will move towards exemption, which I think will help Celsa and many others.

Iain Wright: I thank the Secretary of State for attending the Thursday sitting of the Select Committee, which is conducting an inquiry on steel. He may recall that I asked him about the maintaining of confidence. There is growing concern that firms are not supplying to Tata facilities because they fear that the steel business may go into administration and they will not be paid, and credit insurance is being withdrawn. Businesses that supplied SSI do not want to get their fingers burnt twice, and customers, especially those with long-term horizons, are looking to Tata’s competitors for alternative provision. What further firm steps will the Government take on the matter of credit insurance to ensure that word goes out, loudly and with clarity, that this is a viable operation and firms can supply to and buy from Tata with confidence?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Committee’s work on this matter, which is helpful to the debate and enables us to look more closely at the position. As for the question of suppliers to Tata, and, indeed, large customers, I have already written to, or asked officials to write to, all the suppliers and customers of Tata Steel strip products. We have contacted the largest suppliers and the largest customers, as has Tata, which has given its reassurance on this point as well. However, I think that the main reassurance I can give relates to the approach of the Government, who are doing all that they can to secure a long-term, viable future for the business.

Tom Pursglove: I would argue that Tata Steel in Corby is a vital component of the midlands engine. Bearing in mind all the commercial sensitivities,   will the Secretary of State update us on exactly what point has been reached in the discussions that are taking place with the aim of securing its future?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend’s approach is commendable, as is the work that he is doing in Corby to secure Tata Steel’s future. As I hope he understands, there is a limited amount that we can say about what is a very commercially sensitive process, but let me reassure him that we are doing everything we can.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is of strategic importance to the economies of Wales and the wider United Kingdom to keep the blast furnaces in Port Talbot operational following any future takeover? Will he consider introducing a steelmaking-specific enterprise incentive scheme, as advocated in the management buyout option, to provide the fiscal incentive that is required to safeguard steelmaking in Wales?

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I, too, want to see a future for steelmaking in Wales, and we are doing everything that we can to help with that. He mentioned the management buyout proposal. We are taking a very careful look at that, and would, of course, be willing to work with those involved.

Mike Wood: What action is my right hon. Friend taking to help UK steel suppliers to win Government contracts, and to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain benefit from those opportunities?

Sajid Javid: That is a good question. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already changed procurement rules so that they can take economic and social factors into account. We are also making the pipeline of deals much more visible, and targeting that at SMEs in particular.

Kevin Brennan: Carwyn Jones, the Labour First Minister in Wales, who is at Port Talbot again today, had a package of support in place immediately after Tata’s announcement of its intention to sell. Now that the UK Government have belatedly woken up and followed that lead, how confident is the Secretary of State that Tata’s true intention is to be responsible? It took over a year to sort out long products, and Tata wants this to be done and dusted—including due diligence—by the end of June. Does the Secretary of State think that that is a realistic prospect?

Sajid Javid: We are working with the Labour First Minister and his Government. Both Governments understand just how important this is, and I think it is also important for us to continue to work together. As for the question of timing, I believe, as I said earlier, that Tata is sincere in its commitment to a reasonable time frame and a reasonable process. I have no reason to think that that will not be the case. Tata continues to show flexibility, and I hope that things stay that way.

Business Start-ups

Wendy Morton: What steps his Department is taking to support people who want to start their own businesses.

Anna Soubry: We have a growing and healthy economy, which is good for all business, but which, in particular, encourages people who want to start up their own businesses. We are looking at ways in which we can improve, for example, practices for self-employed people, which is also very helpful. Our a start-up loans scheme has provided more than 37,000 loans worth over £210 million.

Wendy Morton: In my constituency, the number of registered businesses increased by about 10% between 2014 and 2015. As I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, that is very welcome. I recently visited Streetly Vets, a new business that has been set up by two sisters in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the first few years of being in business can be some of the most challenging, and will she assure me that the Government are doing all that they can to support new and small businesses?

Anna Soubry: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is the first few years that are the trickiest. If you can jump that hurdle, you can achieve almost anything; you can certainly make sure that your business will grow. I have explained about the start-up loans that we do, but the other great achievement of this Government in the past 12 months is our work on cutting business rates. This has been the biggest ever cut in business rates, reducing the burden by £6.7 billion, which will benefit 900,000 smaller properties. That is very good news, especially for small businesses.

Alison McGovern: Small businesses might like to start up in the town centre of New Ferry in my constituency, except that footfall has gone through the floor and the Co-op and Lloyds bank are now closing. Who should my constituents blame for the dereliction? Is it the Tory Ministers who withdrew from regeneration, or is it the absentee landlords who bought up property and are now nowhere to be seen?

Anna Soubry: I really do not think it is as simple as that. It is unfortunate that when bad news is delivered it is often turned into a party political football. There are all sorts of reasons why a number of high streets continue to have difficulties. Equally, there are all manner of solutions that can be used to turn them around. I would ask the hon. Lady to look at some of the successes of Conservative, Labour and indeed Lib Dem councils in helping and supporting their high streets. Most importantly I would suggest that, rather than talking down her high street, she should be talking it up.

Apprenticeships

Vicky Foxcroft: What steps the Government are taking to increase take-up of apprenticeships among (a) people with disabilities, (b) care leavers and (c) other disadvantaged groups.

Sajid Javid: We want to ensure that apprenticeships are accessible to the widest possible range of people. We are promoting reasonable adjustments for disabled learners and fully   funding apprenticeship training for young people aged 19 to 24 with an education, health and care plan and for care leavers up to the age of 24.

Vicky Foxcroft: As the Government already have targets to increase the proportion of black and minority ethnic apprenticeships by 20%, does the Minister not agree that they should do the same for people with disabilities and for care leavers?

Sajid Javid: I agree that we should do all that we can, and we have made it a huge priority to help more individuals with learning difficulties and disabilities to take up apprenticeships. We have done this by providing guidance for individuals and working with employers to help them better to understand what more we can do. Our apprenticeship revolution will leave no one behind.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Construction Industry Training Board, which is based in Bircham Newton in my constituency, has been excellent at encouraging people with disabilities to take up apprenticeships? Can he confirm that when the CITB’s existing levy is merged with the apprenticeship levy, it will still have sufficient funding to carry on with its excellent programmes? Will he come up to Bircham Newton to visit the CITB at some stage during his tenure?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the good work of the CITB in this regard, and when the apprenticeship levy is introduced from April 2017, we can make sure that it continues to have the funding available to do the same kind of work.

Tax Returns

Ruth Cadbury: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of proposed changes to filing of tax returns.

Anna Soubry: I talk to Treasury Ministers on a continuing basis and in my ministerial role I am more than happy to take up the cause of small businesses. I met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses only last week and they reiterated their concerns about the proposals, but of course this is not a mandatory filing every quarter; it is effectively good bookkeeping. They raised their concerns and I am more than happy to listen to them and, most importantly, to represent them to the Treasury. Also, a consultation is taking place, so there is always room to make sure that we continue to do the right thing.

Ruth Cadbury: I am glad that the Minister is listening. My constituent, Sheila Knight, is the director of a small local business and she is very concerned about the proposal to make businesses submit data quarterly to HMRC. She says:
“It will cause a huge amount of extra work, expense and worry for absolutely no benefit. Like most small businesses, I collate my accounts information once a year and give it to my accountant. Having to do this four times a year will be a huge imposition and my accountant’s fees will be pro rata more expensive.”
Does the Minister not agree that what small businesses need is strategic support from the Government, not more bureaucracy and unnecessary cost?

Anna Soubry: It is about reducing bureaucracy and cutting costs for small businesses. It is not a quarterly tax return; it is good, sensible bookkeeping, which good businesses do anyway. Keeping the books in good condition every quarter will help small businesses when they come to submit their annual returns. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady’s constituent and explain things to her, because there is a lot of misinformation.

Kit Malthouse: I am pleased to hear that the Minister has met the Federation of Small Businesses, of which I am a proud member. From that meeting, she will know that 60% of small businesses do not currently operate digital accounting systems. Does the Minister understand the rising level of anxiety in that part of the business community? Does she agree that it might be sensible for the Treasury to consider introducing the system on a voluntary basis, which made self-assessment such a success when it was introduced all those years ago?

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There will always be good, full support for this digital movement. The other thing that is of concern to some small businesses is access to superfast broadband, because there is no point in doing this unless a business has it. Many small businesses are reticent to get up to speed—if I can put it that way—but I am confident that, with the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, we are making huge progress and ensuring that all businesses have access to superfast broadband.

Bill Esterson: The Minister has singularly failed to explain how the change will help businesses. I do not know whether she has ever produced a set of business accounts, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told MPs in a Westminster Hall debate in January that it would require a
“a summary of income and expenses.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 36WH.]
As every businessperson knows, that can be done only by putting together the full detail each quarter. Whether the Minister calls it reporting, filing or updating, her claim that the change represents a reduction in red tape is laughable. It is a major increase in bureaucracy, administration and costs, especially for those businesses without digital access. The Government should go away and think again.

Anna Soubry: I am one of those who actually had a real job or two before coming to this place. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a self-employed barrister, I absolutely did have to provide accounts each week, but I do not claim to have run a business of more than just myself and maybe one other. The most important thing is that these are not quarterly returns. The hon. Gentleman really should understand what is proposed. It is actually a good way of ensuring that small businesses always keep up to date with how their business is going. The change will enable businesses to do their annual returns considerably better.

Business Regulation

William Wragg: What steps he is taking to reduce the level of business regulation.

Sajid Javid: The Government committed in their manifesto to cut £10 billion of business red tape through the business impact target. We will report on our progress in June this year.

William Wragg: The Government are doing well to cut regulation at home, but we cannot ignore the fact that the most burdensome regulations on British companies come from the European Union and cost British business £22 billion a year. Given that there were 1,469 new pieces of EU regulation and 51 EU directives in 2015, is it not clear that the only way to end the cost to British business is to vote to leave?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of cutting business regulation, but I do not recognise the £22 billion a year figure for EU regulation. I am sure that he will agree that as well as looking at the costs of regulation, we should consider the benefits of the single market. With 500 million consumers, it is the world’s largest economic zone, and there is no doubt that it helps to generate jobs throughout Britain, including in Greater Manchester.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State will be aware that many small businesses often apply to one lender only for finance—usually their bank—and that two in five of those turned down do not go on to apply for finance anywhere else. What more are the Government doing to ensure that small businesses have access to as good a range of financial products as possible to keep the economy moving in the right direction?

Sajid Javid: First, the hon. Gentleman may know that one of the changes brought in during the coalition Government was that if a small business’s application for credit is refused, that application can be passed on, with the business’s permission, to other potential lenders. That has certainly helped to change the landscape. We can also help to increase competition, on which the Treasury has been leading. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of providers of SME finance, he will see that there has been a dramatic change there, too.

Productivity

Jo Cox: What recent assessment he has made of trends in productivity levels.

Anna Soubry: Productivity, measured as output per hour worked, increased by 1% in 2015 as a whole—the largest annual increase since 2011—and is now 1.7% higher than it was in 2008.

Jo Cox: The reality is that this Government’s record on productivity has been one of failure. Last July, they launched their deeply underwhelming productivity plan, which was damned by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills as
“a vague collection of existing policies”,
the Committee warning that it risked
“collecting dust on Whitehall bookshelves”.
Can the Minister update the House on what steps she is taking to improve on the Government’s record to date?

Anna Soubry: I am sorry that it seems the hon. Lady did not hear my answer; I remind her that productivity is now 1.7% higher than it was in 2008 and we saw its largest annual increase since 2011 only last year. I do not know where she is getting her information from—I have my suspicions—but unfortunately she is wrong. This Government are absolutely committed to improving productivity, and we have already heard, by way of example, the Minister for Skills talking about the work we are doing to ensure that we have the right skills—that is an essential part of an effective productivity plan.

Topical Questions

Julie Elliott: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: Ministers and officials across government continue to work around the clock to support Britain’s steel industry—I have updated the House on progress several times and will continue to do so, whenever appropriate; our two major pieces of legislation, the Enterprise Bill and the Trade Union Bill, are moving closer to the statute book; and we are on the verge of naming the National Environment Research Council’s new polar research vessel. The final decision on that will be made by the Minister for Universities and Science—Joey McJoface, as we like to call him.

Julie Elliott: In The Sunday Times this week it was reported that meetings are taking place in France to look at how people could take advantage of getting business from the UK in the event of a Brexit vote. Does the Secretary of State agree that remaining in the EU is vital for British trade, particularly in the automotive and aerospace industries, and for the health of the British economy as a whole?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady on that. She mentioned the automotive and aerospace industries, two of our strongest manufacturing sectors in the UK, which rely heavily on a supply chain that is international—much of it is in Europe. Equally, she could mention our services industries, which account for 80% of our GDP.

Simon Burns: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals to allow waiters and waitresses, rather than restaurant owners, to actually receive tips given to them will be warmly welcomed? Does he not think that the House of Commons should show a lead, because in our own restaurants the agency workers and part-time workers who serve Members and their guests do not receive tips?

Anna Soubry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. May I begin by thanking and paying a huge tribute to everybody who works in this place, especially those in our catering services? They often have to work  the most unsocial hours and often do so in the most difficult of conditions, as they suddenly have a huge influx of us going into the Tea Room or wherever it might be. We perhaps underestimate the work they do. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point and I would be more than happy to take this up with the House authorities. In the meantime, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on rightly launching this consultation, as when someone, in any facility, pays a tip, they expect the person to whom they want that tip to go to receive it—all of it. I think this will allow us to begin to see real progress, so that we do the right thing on this.

Angela Eagle: Two Select Committees of this House are now preparing to examine the collapse of BHS into administration last week, putting at risk 11,000 jobs. Sir Philip Green bought the company for £200 million, took hundreds of millions of pounds out of it in dividend payments for his own family and then sold it for £1 to a bankrupt with no retail experience. What does the Business Secretary think are the issues for public policy as he contemplates the current situation? Does he think this represents responsible ownership?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. As she said, two Select Committees are already looking into it, and considerable concern has been expressed in Parliament. I share some of those concerns, which is why I can inform her that, today, I have written to the chief executive of the Insolvency Service and instructed her to commence an investigation immediately. She has agreed to do so, and I will make both those letters—mine and hers—available in the Libraries of both Houses later today.

Angela Eagle: That is good news and I certainly welcome the steps that the Business Secretary has taken. During Sir Philip Green’s stewardship of BHS, the pension fund went from a surplus to a black hole of £571 million. What options do the Government and the pensions regulator now have to ensure that Sir Philip Green pays his fair share of that huge liability? Does the Secretary of State agree that the pension protection fund was designed as a lifeboat for staff pensions, not a funding stream for the owner’s luxury yacht?

Sajid Javid: Hopefully, the hon. Lady will understand that it would be wrong of me, and of anyone else, to single out any particular individual. That is for independent investigators to look at by examining the evidence in front of them. She will also know that, when it comes to defined benefit pension schemes, there are many in deficit, and just because one is in deficit does not necessarily mean that there has been some kind of wrongdoing. As I have said, I have instructed the Insolvency Service to commence an investigation, but she should also be reassured that the pension regulator will be looking into this matter.

James Morris: There are 850,000 dementia sufferers in the UK, and that number is set to double over the next few years. What is the Minister doing to encourage  British scientists to be as innovative as possible in delivering on improved care for those suffering from dementia?

Jo Johnson: We took the decision to protect the science budget, enabling us to invest, and put the UK at the front of tackling diseases such as dementia. In addition, a Government investment of £150 million has been announced by the Prime Minister to establish a dementia research institute. I am pleased to confirm that two leading charities, the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, have now pledged a further £100 million towards the project. The Medical Research Council will be looking for an inspirational director to lead the institute and bring together the collective experience that exists in the UK and worldwide.

Margaret Greenwood: Guidance issued by the Government on 8 February on the use of Government-funded research for lobbying caused great concern in the field of higher education and indeed among academics in my constituency of Wirral West. Can the Minister confirm that all grants given out under the remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be exempt from the anti-lobbying clause? Will he also confirm that he is seeking a similar exemption for research grants given out by other Government Departments and agencies?

Jo Johnson: Yes, there has been concern from academic communities and I can confirm that all grants issued by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the academies will not be covered by that clause.

Kelly Tolhurst: I am proud that, of the south-east’s 348,000 apprenticeships, Rochester and Strood has provided 7,410, the fourth largest amount. I am also grateful to companies such as BAE Systems that makes an annual commitment to  12 higher level apprenticeships in my area. How can  the Secretary of State provide further support to my constituency’s small and medium-sized businesses to offer more local people the opportunity of a quality apprenticeship?

Nicholas Boles: The performance of businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency is truly remarkable and leads the way in the south-east. I hope that she is aware that we offer smaller employers who have never had apprentices before a grant to help them with their first five apprenticeships. I hope that she will be able to communicate that to them and ensure that they take up that grant.

Diana R. Johnson: Given the similarity of recent events at British Home Stores with what happened to Hull-based Comet four years ago, when British taxpayers were left with tens of millions of pounds to pay out in redundancy payments, will the Secretary of State ensure that the report that he commissioned on Comet and the Comet scandal is published?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that the report was commissioned by my predecessor. I will take a close look at what she has said and get back to her.

Seema Kennedy: Given the hope of renewed trade links between the UK and Iran, which will be dependent on good communication, does my right hon. Friend consider that now is the right time to withdraw accreditation for Persian GCSE and A-level?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of trade with Iran. She will know that that is why the Government have announced a trade mission that will take place soon. If more people in the UK speak Persian, that will help. I will happily take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.

Mike Kane: I welcome the fact that BHS administrators have entered consultation with USDAW, the retail union, for the lack of consultation was in part to blame for the pension fund going from a £5 million surplus to a £571 million deficit. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State consider the case that there should be enhanced employee rights, in particular in this aspect of companies law?

Sajid Javid: As I said earlier, it would be wrong for anyone to jump to conclusions about the pension fund and the reason for the deficit. The right way forward is for independent regulators to take a look.

Andrea Jenkyns: I am a champion of the Sutton Trust and the inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility into access into leading professions. What is the Department doing to support our leading professions to work with schools and universities to build up the schools base, so that more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds can access our top professions?

Jo Johnson: We have established the Careers & Enterprise Company to make sure that all young people know about the opportunities available to them through our higher education reforms. We are also giving students more information than ever before about their course choice, and we have introduced degree apprenticeships as a new route into the professions. We want to see universities playing their part too, which is why I have asked the director of fair access to continue to focus on access to the professions in his work with universities.

Liz McInnes: A total of 11,000 BHS employees face an uncertain future over not just their jobs, but their pensions. Where will the Secretary of State place responsibility for filling the pension fund black hole? Will it be with the taxpayer or with the owners of the company, who paid themselves more than £400 million in dividends while the pension fund was driven into the ground?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that if, sadly, defined benefit pension funds have trouble, we have the pension protection fund in place, but of course we should always examine why a pension fund may need recourse to the PPF. That job should be done by independent regulators, not politicians.

Martin Vickers: The HCF CATCH training facility in my constituency was established 10 years ago as a partnership between the local authority and the private sector, since when 800 apprentices have  passed through its doors. May I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Skills Minister to visit it? Does he agree that such a partnership is the way forward?

Nicholas Boles: I feel sure that my hon. Friend is slightly disappointed to have just a Lincolnshire neighbour coming to visit him, but if he can put up with me, I would be delighted to do so.

Angela Rayner: In the Secretary of State’s discussions with Tata, will he have time to raise Tata’s involvement in the outsourcing of up to 800 jobs from British Airways, including its centre in south Manchester, which supplies jobs to my constituents and has already announced 80 redundancies? As  revealed last week, this is another example where Tata’s actions threaten our national security along with our jobs, so will the Government step in to protect both?

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Lady wants to send me more detailed information about that, I will gladly take a closer look.

David Nuttall: Why should 100% of British businesses have to comply with EU regulations when less than 10% of them export to the EU?

Sajid Javid: I touched earlier on the importance of the single market. It is the largest single market in the world, with 500 million consumers, and it brings huge benefits to British businesses in growth and jobs.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the decision to scrap bursaries for nurses? First, that will deter mature students and people from black and minority ethnic communities and disadvantaged communities, and secondly, while nurses are training, they spend 50% of their time doing practical work, looking after people. It is unfair that they should pay to provide services to others.

Nicholas Boles: What I share with the hon. Lady is a determination to ensure that the groups she mentioned and other groups that have been discussed today have the maximum opportunity, particularly in the NHS. That is one reason why we are making great steps towards developing a new nursing apprenticeship, which will offer people a way into the profession, gaining that qualification while they are working and earning.

Richard Fuller: Alas, there is no law against selling a company to a bunch of clowns, which is a great pity for the employees and pension holders of British Home Stores. However, there is an expectation that the public should be able to look to the advisers in such a sale—the lawyers and accountants—to live up to their responsibilities and to do their duty. Will right hon. Friend look carefully at the templates and responsibilities for advisers in transactions so that we do not see another great British company sold to a bunch of muppets?

Sajid Javid: I can reassure my hon. Friend of that. He has spoken eloquently on this issue a number of times, and he knows it well. We will learn lessons from the collapse of any company, but especially one as important and as large as BHS. As I said earlier, there will now be  an investigation by the Insolvency Service, which I have instructed to start today, and we will certainly draw lessons from the outcome of that and other investigations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We must move on.

ALEPPO

Jo Cox: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Aleppo, Syria.

Tobias Ellwood: The Syrian conflict has entered its sixth year. As a result of Assad’s brutality and the terror of Daesh, half the population have been displaced and more than 13 million people are in need of humanitarian aid. The UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, estimates that as many as 400,000 people might have been killed as a direct result of the conflict.
Our long-term goal is for Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government capable of protecting their people from Daesh and other extremists. Only when that happens can stability be returned to the region, which is necessary to stem the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe.
We have been working hard to find a political solution to the conflict. There have been three rounds of UN-facilitated peace negotiations in Geneva this year—in February, March and April. The latest round concluded on 27 April without significant progress on the vital issue of political transition. We have always been clear that negotiations will make progress only if the cessation of hostilities is respected, full humanitarian access is granted and both sides are prepared to discuss political transition.
The escalating violence over the past two weeks, especially around Aleppo, has been an appalling breach of the cessation of hostilities agreement. On 27 April, the al-Quds hospital in Aleppo city was bombed, killing civilians, including two doctors, and destroying vital equipment. More than a dozen hospitals in the city have already been closed because of air strikes, leaving only a few operating. The humanitarian situation is desperate. According to human rights monitors, at least 253 civilians, including 49 children, have been killed in the city in the last fortnight alone.
At midnight on Friday, following international diplomatic efforts between the US and Russia, a renewed cessation came into effect in Latakia and eastern Ghouta in Damascus. We understand that this has reduced some of the violence in Latakia, but the situation remains shaky in eastern Ghouta.
The situation in Aleppo remains very fluid indeed. The Assad regime continues to threaten a major offensive on the city. There were some reports of a cessation of attacks overnight, but we have received reports indicating that violence has continued this morning. We need swift action to stop the fighting. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is speaking to Secretary Kerry today to discuss how we can preserve the cessation.
We look to Russia, with its unique influence over the regime, to ensure that the cessation of hostilities does not break down. It has set itself up as the protector of the Assad regime, and it must now put real pressure on the regime to end these attacks. This is crucial if peace negotiations are to be resumed in Geneva. These negotiations must deliver a political transition away  from Assad to a legitimate Government who can support the needs and aspirations of all Syrians, and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.
We also need to inject further momentum into political talks. We therefore support the UN envoy’s call for a ministerial meeting of the International Syria Support Group to facilitate a return to a process leading to a political transition in Syria. We hope that this can take place in the coming weeks. The UK is working strenuously to make that happen, and we will continue to do so.

Jo Cox: I have to say that, once again, it is a shame that the Secretary of State cannot be here personally for an important discussion on this matter. I hope that that will be noted.
Without international action, on current trends, at the end of this short debate, another two Syrian civilians will be dead and four will be badly injured. On Friday, desperate doctors in Aleppo appealed for international help to stave off further massacres and the potential besiegement of that city, fearing a repeat of the horrors of Srebrenica. In the light of this, does the Minister agree that it is the Syrian authorities who are primarily responsible for these horrific ongoing abuses, continuing their long-standing policy of targeting civilians in rebel-held areas? Does he also agree that we now urgently need a mechanism, with clear consequences, to deter further barbaric attacks on civilians? I have raised repeatedly in this place the need for a no-bombing zone; will he now look again at that?
What is the UK doing to work with all those with an influence over parties to the conflict, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Russia, to put pressure on all sides to stop all attacks on civilian targets, including hospitals? Does the Minister have evidence that Russian forces have been directly involved in the latest air strikes? If they were, does he agree that is it surely time for fresh sanctions against Russia? Is it not now also time for his Department, along with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, to look again at airdrops to besieged communities? Why can we not join forces with our European allies to get food to starving people? Would not airdrops also put the regime under renewed pressure to grant more traditional and reliable land access?
On accountability, is the Minister’s Department involved in collecting evidence to enable eventual war crimes trials, as we did during the Balkans conflict? I understand that the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which is funded by the UK and US Governments, has evidence to link abuses to the highest level in the Syrian state.
On refugees, given the escalation of the violence in Aleppo and the lack of medical care now available there, what more can the UK do to get the most vulnerable people out of harm’s way? Surely, given what we know about the horror from which many of the refugee children in Europe have fled, it is now time to end the Government’s shameful refusal to give 3,000 unaccompanied children sanctuary here in the UK.
While I am a huge fan of President Obama—indeed, I worked for him in North Carolina in 2008—I believe that both he and the Prime Minister made the biggest misjudgment of their time in office when they put Syria on the “too difficult” pile and, instead of engaging fully,  withdrew and put their faith in a policy of containment. This judgment, made by both leaders for different reasons, will, I believe, be judged harshly by history, and it has been nothing short of a foreign policy disaster. However, there is still time for both men to write a postscript to this failure. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the leaders of both our countries, even in the midst of a two hotly contested political campaigns, to launch a joint, bold initiative to protect civilians, to get aid to besieged communities, and to throw our collective weight behind the fragile peace talks before they fail? I do not believe that either President Obama or the Prime Minister tried to do harm in Syria but, as is said, sometimes all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Tobias Ellwood: First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work as chair of the all-party friends of Syria group? It is important that the House is kept up to date with the fluid events taking place in that country. To qualify her remarks, the Foreign Secretary is returning from an important visit to Latin America; otherwise, he would be in the Chamber responding on this very important matter.
The hon. Lady raised a number of issues and I will do my best to go through them efficiently. First, I absolutely concur with her: it is Syria that is very much responsible for the significant number of deaths of people in the country of all religions, particularly the Sunnis. That is why we call on Russia to use its influence to bring Assad to account and to make sure that we can get access. Following the previous ceasefire, we gained access to about a third of the areas that we could not previously get to. We hope that we can unlock the situation and get access in the forthcoming days.
The hon. Lady mentioned methods of delivery, particularly airdrops. There are places in Daesh-held territory where it is possible, because of air superiority, to fly slow and low enough to drop aid packages accurately, but that is not the case for some of the conurbations and communities in the built-up areas. Aleppo is Syria’s largest city by some margin, and not only are the opposition and the Assad Government there; al-Nusra is there as well. Without the regime’s support—it has air superiority—we cannot carry out the airdrops that the hon. Lady would like. It is better to get agreement from Assad to take trucks straight into those places so that they can go directly to the people in need. Airdrops can land randomly. They often get into the wrong hands and do not help the very vulnerable whom we wish to support.
The hon. Lady mentioned the role of other countries, including Saudi Arabia. Foreign Minister al-Jubeir is in Geneva with John Kerry at the moment, playing his role. Let us not forget that it was Saudi Arabia that brought together the opposition groups in the first place in December, which began the three rounds of talks that have taken place.
The hon. Lady talked about the importance of collecting evidence. We had a very good debate two weeks ago about genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We are playing a leading role in making sure that people are brought to justice. As we saw in the case of the former Serbian-Bosnian leader, Radovan Karadžic, sometimes the process takes many years, but we are  actively and heavily involved—we are likely to make more effort—in making sure that we collect the evidence as we speak.
The hon. Lady made an interesting comment about placing Syria on the “too difficult” pile. I ask the House to consider how different Syria might look if, in August 2013, we had voted in favour of punitive bomb strikes. Daesh did not even exist in Syria at that time—it had no foothold whatsoever. Instead, this House stepped back from that decision, and I think that we will live to regret that.

Crispin Blunt: Back in February, President Assad described retaking the whole of Syria as
“a goal we are seeking to achieve without hesitation”,
but he was slapped down by the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, who said:
“I heard President Assad’s remarks on television…Of course, they do not chime with the diplomatic efforts that Russia is undertaking”.
The Foreign Secretary has admitted that he does not get much out of his conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Does the Minister think that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has the necessary capacity satisfactorily to read Russian interests and intentions?

Tobias Ellwood: The key relationship that has developed and that allows us to place greater emphasis on Russia—whether it be Putin, Lavrov or Bogdanov—is that with John Kerry. The closeness with which he is working with the Foreign Secretary shows that we are playing our part as well. From a humanitarian perspective, we are the second largest donor to the country. We are playing our part on the humanitarian aspect as well as with regard to the military. We are very much at the forefront of activities but, ultimately, it is not for the Americans or the British but for Russia to determine that it is going to place pressure on Assad to allow access to the very areas into which we need to get humanitarian aid.

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the Minister for his response and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) on securing this urgent question. In the short time that she has been in the House, she has consistently stood up for the people of Syria who are caught in this appalling conflict.
The whole House can unite in condemning last week’s air strikes and shelling in Aleppo. In particular, as is recognised by the Geneva convention, there is never any justification for attacking hospitals. The bravery and commitment of the medics who remained in Aleppo stand in sharp contrast to the cowardice and brutality of the Assad regime, which once again showed its indifference to the population of Syria. Despite the actions of the Assad regime, we must remain committed to the peace talks and to a political solution to the current conflict.
As a member of the Syria Support Group, Britain has a crucial role to play, particularly in supporting the US-Russia ceasefire talks. Britain ought to be an active contributor to that process. As a leading EU country, we can wield real influence as a member of Russia’s most important trading bloc. What discussions are ongoing  at an EU level about exerting pressure on the Russians to redouble their commitment to the ceasefire? As the Minister has stated, Russia is in the strongest position to tell President Assad to stop killing civilians in Aleppo.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen, may I ask what specific steps the UK Government are taking with key allies such as Saudi Arabia to encourage the Syrian opposition to recommit to the peace process? Will the Minister comment on reports that the Assad regime used the ceasefire to move troops and prepare for an assault on Aleppo? May I ask whether the negotiations under way in Geneva include provisions for additional monitoring so that all sides can have confidence that a new ceasefire agreement will be genuine?
At the heart of the conflict is a humanitarian disaster of an almost unimaginable scale. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK is pushing for humanitarian access to be at the heart of any new ceasefire agreement? Finally, will the Minister comment on recent reports of an increase in collusion between the Assad regime and Daesh, with the Assad regime stepping back from confronting Daesh in a number of areas while continuing to trade with it and therefore providing vital funds for its campaigns?

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the tone in which the hon. Lady raises these important questions. We have had a series of debates on the matter, and I concur with the hon. Lady in welcoming the work that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) has done in her role as chair of the friends of Syria all-party group.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned the Geneva conventions. They are part of collecting the evidence that is necessary in the longer term to bring the culprits to account. That work is ongoing with a number of non-governmental organisations that Britain is supporting. If I may, I will digress to pay tribute to the White Helmets, an organisation that Britain helps to fund, which helps to dig people out of the rubble. Its members are based in these very dangerous areas and are trained to save the lives of civilians who are caught up in them. They go into those disastrous areas with the necessary technology to try to pull survivors out.
The hon. Lady mentioned the role of the EU. Federica Mogherini, the EU High Representative, is a member of the ministerial working group, and she is very much engaged on the matter at the highest level. As I mentioned, the group will be meeting in the very near future.
The hon. Lady talked about the importance of the Syrian opposition and its cohesion. I had the opportunity to meet the president of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul only a couple of weeks ago. The Syrian opposition was pessimistic at that point about the progress that was being made, and now we have seen events unfold. Given its disparate nature and the wide agendas that it follows, the fact that the group has stayed together is an indication of its determination to say, “We do not want to be part of Daesh, but we also do not want to have Assad as our leader.”
The hon. Lady is right to indicate that there is huge collusion, as a matter of convenience, between Assad and Daesh. Reports are coming out that in Palmyra, for example, a deal was struck that Daesh would retreat   from that area and the Assad regime would be able to claim that retreat as a victory, but clearly something else was happening behind the scenes.
The hon. Lady alludes to the fact that there have been oil sales. The Assad regime is short of oil supplies and Daesh has crude oil that it can it sell, which is another area of mutual convenience. Thankfully, the work we have been doing right across the board on counter-Daesh initiatives is preventing Daesh from being able to produce its oil and therefore to gain financially from sales or, indeed, to use the oil itself.

John Redwood: What is the Government’s current advice to the military opposition to Assad other than Daesh, given that the Government have been sympathetic to the opposition in the past, but it now finds itself in an extremely difficult position?

Tobias Ellwood: I made it clear in my opening remarks that a political solution is needed in relation to the Assad regime. We need to move forward with a transition process to ensure the eventual removal of Assad, which will allow the country to unite to take on Daesh itself. However, the two are not mutually exclusive—we can continue our campaign to destroy Daesh. We have already seen the liberation of Ramadi, and I hope that we will see the liberation of the city of Mosul in the near future.

Patrick Grady: This is an urgent question, but it would be helpful if we heard more of a tone of urgency in the Government’s response. The destruction of the infrastructure in Aleppo is so wanton that we are beginning to wonder whether there will be anything left worth fighting over. The first priority has to be a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can be supplied to those desperately in need. Are the Government making or supporting preparations to deliver aid as soon as any window of opportunity arises? The second priority has to be a longer-term peace settlement. It would be useful to hear what role the Government see themselves playing in a process currently dominated by the US and Russia. Finally, we must support those fleeing conflict. I therefore echo the calls for the Government finally to show some humanity and to reconsider their position on accepting unaccompanied refugee children from Europe.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman asks three questions. First, on restructuring, one of the reasons why we co-hosted—along with Kuwait, Germany, Norway and the United Nations—the important conference that took place in February was exactly to make sure that we could collect the necessary pledges from around the world. Over $11 billion, a record amount for any single day, was pledged to provide such support, most of which is going to the refugees, but there are also other initiatives.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need for a political track, which I have already mentioned. It is not for us to determine that track. This is part of why the opposition coalition has come together, and it is exactly what the talks in Geneva are all about.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 3,000 children. That issue has already been mentioned, and I apologise for not previously touching on it. We are doing our best  to help to stem the flow of refugees from the source itself. There is a huge question to be asked when EU member states, it is felt, cannot look after refugees and we are taking refugees from other EU member states. We have put in extra funding to make sure that, no matter where the refugees come to, they are looked after to absolutely the same standards. We do not want to add to the problem by encouraging more people, including children, to make the perilous journey along the various routes. As I say, the UK is helping to provide better support. Indeed, we are sending out teams to the various refugee camps to make sure that they have the necessary standards that we would expect if the refugees were in this country. I would add that we are honouring the Dublin convention, as hon. Members will be aware, which allows the transfer of children from other member states if they have a direct family connection in this country. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, who is sitting on the Front Bench, concurs.

Helen Whately: The news from Aleppo emphasises that Assad must not be part of the endgame in Syria. To what extent would my hon. Friend say that Russia has also come round to that view, and what more can be done to get Russia to rein in its ally, Assad?

Tobias Ellwood: Those who are familiar, as I know my hon. Friend is, with the long-term historical relationship between Russia and Syria will be aware that this is an area of the world that Russia sees as its sphere of influence. Syria supported the Soviet Union during the cold war and Assad’s father trained as a MiG pilot in Russia. There are strong ties between the countries. I would advocate that Russia recognise that although it wants to keep its influence, it is not so wedded to Assad the individual. The political transition must move forward and the people of Syria must determine who their next leader will be.

David Winnick: Is it not clear that although Daesh is, of course, a murderous group run by outright murderers and psychopaths, the Syrian Government have for some time been carrying out crimes against humanity on a far greater scale—aided and abetted, moreover, by a member of the United Nations Security Council?

Tobias Ellwood: I concur with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says. We took steps to hold Assad to account when he crossed a line by using chemical weapons. We wanted to take action, and we came to this House, but I afraid that this House decided that that was not the action that was needed. We need to recognise that there are occasions on which a few countries in the world can stand up to dictators such as Assad, and the rest of the world looks to countries such as Britain to act. We did not at that juncture.

James Gray: As the Minister has said, in particular in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), Russia is absolutely central to finding any kind of long-term solution in Syria. That is absolutely correct. Yet in all our attempts to talk to Russia we discover that there is an absolute brick wall between us.
Last week, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee were in Moscow, but the Russian Government would not speak to us. Lines of communication have broken down. Does the Minister agree that now may be the time to put aside, temporarily, our perfectly reasonable objection to and outrage at the illegal annexation of Crimea, and say to the Russians that we need to talk to them about Syria and that for now we should park our differences on other matters?

Tobias Ellwood: I am aware that the Defence Committee made efforts to visit Moscow, which would have been an important visit—

James Gray: We were there last week.

Tobias Ellwood: What I am trying to say is that what my hon. Friend has put his finger on, in tying the two issues together, is exactly what we should recognise. The sanctions against Putin are coming from the very countries to which the refugees are moving. We need to be a bit more astute in recognising that from Putin’s perspective the issue of Ukraine and the Crimea is linked with what is happening in Syria.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the draft statement circulating among non-governmental organisations working in the Aleppo area, which says that there is a
“complete absence of the fundamentals of safe humanitarian intervention, and the absence of a clear mechanism to monitor and document violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law”.
Is that the case, and can he tell us more?

Tobias Ellwood: As the right hon. Lady is aware, getting access to Aleppo is very difficult indeed. We are collecting intelligence for the long term. She is right to highlight the complexities of this large city. The al-Nusra Front is based there, and Assad has taken advantage of the ceasefire to move weapons systems up to the area. That is why it is all the more important that we get Russia to exert its influence to make sure that Assad comes back to the table.

Edward Leigh: Surely we have to accept Syria as it is. Whether we like it or not, Assad is not going to go away in a hurry. He has the only army on the ground capable of defeating ISIL, and he has just as much support as all the hundred other warring factions. If we undermine him, an authoritarian, we will unleash worse totalitarian forces. Is it not significant that any progress this week has been as a result of contacts between America and Russia, yet our Government have put the Russian Government in complete deep freeze? We are denying them visas, we are not talking to Lavrov, we have absolutely no influence—because of our obsession with Russia and getting rid of Assad, we are not actually propelling peace forwards. We must drop the present policy and try to co-operate with the Americans so that Russia can get peace.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I agree with the direction of travel he wants. Russia has influence over Assad. We are speaking with the Russians. John Kerry is in Geneva along with   Lavrov, al-Jubeir and others, acknowledging the urgency of getting a renegotiated cessation of hostilities so we can get humanitarian aid back in.

Mike Gapes: The Minister referred to the long term. Can he tell us how long is long term? He also made reference to the vote in this House in 2013. Is not the real failure the fact that our Government and the United States Government did not impose no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors when they could have done in 2011 and 2012? Now it might be very difficult to do so. That is the real failure. Non-intervention is not necessarily the best policy.

Tobias Ellwood: I am a former soldier, and I looked at the idea of no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors. I even wrote some papers on it when I was on the Back Benches. The trouble is: who implements them, and what authority would they have to be in the country? We wanted to take Syria through the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and guess who vetoed it: China and Russia. That is the difficulty we have. We have to ask ourselves how we would implement and enforce such a no-fly zone. I concur with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says, but these are the realities of where we actually are.

Bob Stewart: I think that the most important concern with unaccompanied children is their safety, and I am beginning to wonder whether we might not have our policy the wrong way around. Three thousand children wandering around Europe can easily be picked up by traffickers; 3,000 children in the middle east can be kept safely in camps. I am wondering whether we should look at our policy anew.

Tobias Ellwood: The concerns expressed about the 3,000 children are absolutely sincere. The solution, however, is not simply to remove the challenge from the area, but to solve the challenge in the area. We cannot endorse the idea that it is acceptable for other EU states not to meet the basic requirements for looking after refugees. By taking those refugees, we would simply be providing more space for further refugees to come in, and that is not a long-term solution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The Minister was diverted from the path of virtue by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). No doubt the intentions were good, but we were straying somewhat from the terms of the UQ. As the Minister and others know, I have facilitated much discussion on the matter of refugees. I rather imagine that there will be more, and no doubt people will think, “And so there should be”, but it would be best today if we could stick to the terms of the UQ that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) applied for and that I granted.

Kevan Jones: The Minister quite rightly spoke about the influence of Russia, but what pressure is being put on Iran, which has equally supported the Assad regime, both directly and through proxies such as Hezbollah? Has the Foreign Office or the international community opened up that dialogue with Iran and, as part of the Iran deal, put pressure on it to make sure that it actually responds?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. If Iran is to take a more responsible role on the international stage, following the nuclear deal, we expect it to act in a more honourable way, whether in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad or Sana’a. We have not seen that to date. He is right to say that Hezbollah continues to play an important role, but we are also seeing a difference of opinion between what Iran is looking for and what Russia is after.

Richard Benyon: When we hear at first hand from charities and NGOs that run hospitals in places such as Aleppo of those hospitals being bombed repeatedly by the regime and by Russian forces, the temptation is to come to this place and rage against the system, using those well-worn words, “Something must be done.” But in reality this is the most complex situation. What we want to hear—I think I heard the Minister allude to it this morning—is that everything is being done to work with the Russians to create a framework whereby safe areas and, if possible, air corridors for delivering aid can be secured. There must be a way of ensuring that it is humanitarian aid, even if that means having a Russian at Akrotiri to see what goes on the wretched plane that is delivering it.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend and I discussed these things over the weekend, and I know he has been following events closely. Indeed, he knows people working in the region. It is important we look for a longer-term solution around access to the humanitarian corridors. As I mentioned, the Foreign Secretary is speaking with John Kerry this afternoon, and I hope we will have more to report as time ensues.

Alison McGovern: I think I heard the Minister say in his reply that 49 children had been killed in recent hostilities. If I am correct, will he repeat those facts to the House, so that everybody is clear about what is happening? Will he say what the Government are doing to make sure there is medical care for children in Aleppo?

Tobias Ellwood: I am happy to confirm what I said before. According to human rights monitors, 253 civilians, including 49 children, have been killed in the city of Aleppo in the last fortnight alone. As I have said a couple of times now, the situation in Aleppo is fluid, because of the advances the Assad regime wants to make. Taking this most northern city, a key prize, has been a long-standing objective of the regime, and it would have a huge impact were the city to fall from the coalition.
It is important that we do what we can to provide access and make sure that areas such as hospitals are not bombed. We need to consider the case for giving grid references to make sure that such areas are protected and recognised, not least because a breach of the Geneva convention could be involved.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has twice said that in order to break the logjam we must have a political transition in relation to the Syrian Government. Will he enlighten the House as to what that means? Unpalatable as it might be, could it mean that Assad or some of his key Alawite officials have a role in a temporary transitional government?

Tobias Ellwood: When the Syrian International Support Group came together in Vienna for the first time, it discussed a process of transition to allow the various and diverse stakeholders across the country to determine the timetable. A timetable of 18 months to two years was put forward, but these things are always in the realms of speculation. I certainly hope that the Geneva talks, which is where these negotiations need to take place, will resume discussions on this issue.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister set out what the Secretary of State said in his representations to the Russians following the al-Quds hospital bombing, which was a gross violation of international humanitarian law? Did he ask them to tell Assad to stop, and what was the Russians’ response?

Tobias Ellwood: I was not privy to the exact wording used. If I may, I will ask the Foreign Secretary, who arrives back this afternoon, to write to the right hon. Gentleman directly.

David Rutley: More than five years of conflict is too long, and Members across the House will support the Government and the international community in their efforts to bring peace to this war-torn country. What progress are the Government making in shaping plans for post-conflict reconstruction in Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It has been five years, but the difference over the last five or six months has been that negotiations have taken place and the stakeholders have been brought around the table. The international community, including Iran, Russia, the United States and France, as well as representatives from the EU and the UK, have all been around the table. That had not happened in the previous five years. The coalition and opposition groups have also come together. That is the major change on the previous five years. The London Syria conference was an important step in looking at the detail of what the international community must do, and be ready to do, once the guns eventually fall silent.

Ruth Smeeth: Together with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I was in Moscow last week, and one of the things I found most difficult was that we had no shared understanding of history or of language and diplomacy. I therefore find it incredibly concerning that we are talking in vague words about how to bring Russia genuinely to the table for discussions—through proxies, if not by ourselves. May we have some more detail about what such a plan would be?

Tobias Ellwood: I must have misunderstood, because I thought that the visit did not take place. I am pleased to know that the hon. Lady was able to make it to Moscow. I look forward to hearing any further reports she or the Committee might produce on what they learned from their discussions there. She is right to place the focus on Russia itself and the need for us to have a better understanding of Russia’s intentions—of Putin’s intentions, effectively. Much of this is not the old regime; it is more about this President making his mark, often in an attempt to provide distractions from the domestic mess his country is in.

Seema Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government are committed to gathering evidence relating to crimes against humanity, but will he update us on what protection is being given to Christian communities and other refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the plight of the Christians, not least in Mount Sinjar and then in other areas with the Yazidis. We saw devastating attacks by Daesh as they cleaned these areas out. We had a comprehensive debate on these matters only a couple of weeks ago. It is important for us to collect the evidence, which is what we are doing. I shall not name the NGOs involved; that would be wrong and place them in danger. We are carrying out a lot of work, however, to make sure that we can collect the necessary forensic and legal evidence, which will then allow us to make the case at the UN Security Council and take this matter forward.

Debbie Abrahams: We all condemn the bombings of civilians in Aleppo, but what specific action is the UK taking, in conjunction with our European partners, to try to kick-start the peace process, which, as others have mentioned, is now seriously in the mire?

Tobias Ellwood: I do not want to repeat myself, but the first thing is to get support for the humanitarian initiative that needs to take place in the area. We are the second-largest donor there. The Syria conference was critical in helping refugees—not just in Syria, but in Lebanon, Jordan and indeed Turkey, and I would like to pay tribute to those countries. This is critical. As we speak, talks are taking place behind the scenes to try to pressurise Russia and make sure that Lavrov and Putin recognise that they are best placed to allow humanitarian access and to prevent the bombing of the civilian areas.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Minister’s statement. According to the BBC website, John Kerry has said that the Syrian conflict is now “out of control”. If that is the case, why is the Minister optimistic that the current talks will lead to a solution? Aleppo is the last stronghold of the opposition. If that falls, one may ask why the opposition should take part in any further discussions in Geneva.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is right to point out why the Syrian opposition pulled out from the talks. It is pointless sitting down for talks in Geneva when their own communities are being bombed back home. Although the situation has grown out of control and we have seen the cessation of hostilities break down, the whole purpose of John Kerry’s current initiative in speaking with Lavrov and working with our Secretary of State is to get ourselves back on course to ensure that the cessation of hostilities can be resumed. As I mentioned in my statement, we are seeing some signs that that is working.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The recent bombing of hospitals took place in a city that already has a severe shortage of doctors because of the events of the last three or four years. What can the Minister do   to ensure that any ceasefire has at its heart not only humanitarian aid, but the resumption of medical facilities to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe?

Tobias Ellwood: In the sidelines of the London Syria conference, a number of major NGO workshops and meetings took place. A huge amount of effort has been put in by the Department for International Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who is in his place beside me, so that there is a readiness to move in. At the moment, however, the situation is just too dangerous for that to happen on a large scale.

Nusrat Ghani: Time is not on the side of the people of Aleppo. On Sunday night, the main and only road for those in the rebel-held east was bombed. If the regime manages to close that route, nearly 200,000 residents will be left trapped, without food or medical supplies. Pressure on Russia is key. I urge the Minister to do all he can to stress to Russia that time is running out.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend has made her point very powerfully. The very fact that we are having this debate means that we have another method of communicating with Russia and saying, “We care. We recognise what is going on. Russia, you need to do more, and currently you are not doing that.”

Lisa Cameron: It is estimated that recent violence in Aleppo has led to the death of a Syrian every 25 minutes. There is grave humanitarian urgency. What progress are the Government making in negotiations on taking aid trucks into Aleppo? If no progress is made, will high-altitude airstrikes and air drops be reconsidered?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Lady has raised the important question of how we can best get aid into these vulnerable areas. That horrific statistic, of which I too am aware, highlights the challenge that we face. The international community must put more pressure on Russia, and must ensure that Assad is prohibited from bombing those areas so that we can get the aid in.
The best way to convey aid directly to where it needs to go is by truck, but the local checkpoints must give the trucks permission to go through the grounds in order for that to happen. If we resort to air drops, they can land anywhere. They often land in precisely the wrong hands, and are then used as a barter and as a means of worsening the situation, because the aid is denied to the people who need it.

Jason McCartney: Our Sentinel aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles have provided a very complex and detailed picture of Syria from the air. Has evidence been gathered showing who are the perpetrators of the attacks on civilians? If there is such evidence, how is it being presented to the United Nations and to other nations?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for his work during a previous campaign. He has  a huge amount of knowledge of what the Royal Air Force does, and he will therefore appreciate that the fact that his is an operational question prevents me from giving him a firm answer. However, if he would like to talk to me in the Lobbies, I shall be more than happy to have a quiet chat with him.

Andrew Gwynne: The bombing and shelling of civilian areas in Aleppo is sickening, and calls into serious question the Assad regime’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of the situation in Syria. So too, however, do the attempts to collude and trade with Daesh, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). What more is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing to bring together all sides, and to make clear that action of this kind is compromising our efforts to secure a peaceful settlement in Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman has articulated how complicated Syria is. However, that should not prevent us from playing our part in bringing Daesh to account, along with the international community. We are destroying Daesh on the battlefield, we are destroying their ideology, and we are destroying their ability to get their message out via the internet. We are also providing humanitarian aid and stabilisation capabilities in areas that have been liberated. The piece of the jigsaw that remains difficult is the political situation and the transition in Syria, and that is why it is so urgent for talks to resume in Geneva.

Henry Smith: Along with the United Kingdom’s diplomatic efforts and the £2.3 billion worth of aid for the region, there have been reports of collusion between the Assad regime and Daesh in Syria. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the British airstrikes are focused, and have not resulted in any civilian casualties?

Tobias Ellwood: That is another operational question. I know that the rules of engagement that we adopt and with which we comply ensure that we try to avoid civilian casualties at all times, but, if I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving him more details.

Steven Paterson: What recent contact has been made with the peshmerga to discuss their role both in defeating Daesh and in building a stable and peaceful future throughout Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me licence to pay tribute to the work of the peshmerga in liberating the Mosul dam, for example, and most of Kirkuk and the north of Iraq. It is important that they recognise the importance of working with the Iraqi army to improve the indigenous capability if we are to take Mosul and liberate Iraq from Daesh completely.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We are most grateful to the Minister and to other colleagues.

SOUTHERN HEALTH NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Luciana Berger: Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the safety of care and services provided by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust.

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for her question. At the outset of my response, I want to express my deep concern and apologies to the patients and family members who will again have felt let down by the contents of last week’s report from the Care Quality Commission. Our first duty to patients and their loved ones is to keep them safe. This applies to all of us with a role to play in the NHS, from the frontline to this House, and the Government are therefore clear that it is imperative to be open and transparent about what has gone wrong in order to minimise the risk of similar failings occurring throughout the NHS as a whole. We must ensure that the trust itself continues to be scrutinised and supported to make rapid improvements in care. If that means intervention from the regulators, they will not hesitate to take the necessary action, and we will not hesitate to back them.
Last week’s CQC report followed a focused inspection announced and requested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December 2015. The report from the CQC set out a number of concerns, including: a lack of robust governance arrangements to investigate incidents; a lack of effective arrangements to identify, record or respond to concerns about patient safety; and a need for immediate action to address safety issues in the trust environment. The report also found that the senior management and board agendas were not driven by the need to address these issues. None of those matters is acceptable.
NHS Improvement has taken action in recent months to address the issues at the trust. It has been working closely with the CQC and the trust, and on 24 March, NHS Improvement appointed an improvement director to the trust. On 14 April, following a CQC warning notice on 6 April, NHS Improvement placed an additional condition on the trust’s licence, asking it to make urgent patient safety improvements to address the issues found by the CQC. That condition gave NHS Improvement the power to make management changes at the trust if it did not make progress on fixing the concerns raised.
On 29 April, following the resignation of the trust chair Mike Petter, NHS Improvement announced its intention to appoint Tim Smart as the chair of the trust. As chair, Mr Smart will have responsibility for looking at the adequacy of the trust’s leadership. Given the centrality of issues of governance to the CQC’s report, I welcome the action taken by NHS Improvement. The direct appointment of a new chair by a regulator is a relatively rare step, and it reflects the seriousness of the issues at the trust. NHS Improvement will continue to monitor the situation closely in the coming weeks and months.
I understand that the CQC is considering the trust’s response to its warning notice, and the risks it highlighted, before deciding whether to take any further enforcement action, and none of its options is closed. The notice required significant improvements to be made by 27 April.  Dr Paul Lelliott, the deputy chief inspector at the CQC, was directly responsible for the report, and I spoke to him this afternoon. He informs me that the delivery plan required by 27 April has been received and is in the process of being evaluated. NHS Improvement is working closely with the CQC and the trust, and the improvement director appointed by NHS Improvement is on site regularly, so there is constant independent oversight of the progress being made as well as the formal monthly progress meetings between NHS Improvement and the trust.
In addition to the action we are taking on Southern Health, it is vital that we learn the wider lessons for the NHS as a whole. First, I hope the whole House can agree that it is right that we have robust, expert-led inspection from an independent CQC that provides an objective view about issues of safety and leadership, and that this is backed with action from NHS Improvement where that is required. Secondly, it is vital that we take the issue of avoidable mortality as seriously for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems as we do for other members of our society. To that end, the learning disability mortality review programme has been put in place by NHS England to ensure that the causes of this inequality are understood, and with the aim of eliminating them. In addition, the CQC will be leading a review of how all deaths are investigated, including those of people with learning disabilities or mental health needs. There can be no question but that the CQC report makes for disturbing reading, and that it demands action at local and national levels. We owe our most vulnerable people care that is safe and secure, and I am determined that we will do all we can to ensure patient safety.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for very brief advance sight of his response. Patients and parents have a right to be angry at the failure of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, and we in this House have a duty to be angry on their behalf. To read the litany of failure, missed warnings, reports and recommendations ignored, and secrecy over the last four years would make any reasonable person angry, too. Friday’s CQC report shows that very little has been done since the House last discussed the matter in December.
The scandal at Southern Health has happened on this Government’s watch, and Ministers must take responsibility for what has happened to some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We should be angry that Connor Sparrowhawk was left to drown in a bath. We should be angry that Angela Smith took her own life. We should be angry that David West died in the care of this NHS trust—his father was repeatedly ignored when he raised his concerns. All of them were denied the care that they so desperately needed. Last week, the BBC reported that over the past five years, 12 patients who had been detained for the safety of themselves or others have jumped off the roof of a hospital run by this trust. Access to a roof was still permitted to people at risk of suicide. If all those tragic incidents were the only signs of systemic failure, we should be angry, but there is a much bigger story of neglect and malpractice, which aggregates into a major scandal.
When the Secretary of State responded to the urgent question on Southern Health in December, he rightly said:
“More than anything”
people will
“want to know that the NHS learns from”
such
tragedies”.—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1141.]
The CQC report published on Friday shows that that clearly has not happened. So I ask the Minister: first, what guarantees can the Minister give to the 45,000 patients currently in the care of Southern Health, and their families, that they are safe? Secondly, where is the accountability, the culpability and the responsibility? There seems to be very little. I heard what he said about the chair, but does he agree that the chief executive’s position is now untenable, and that she should be sacked? Thirdly, will he listen to the heartfelt pleas of the victims’ families, the campaigners, and all of us who are demanding a full public inquiry into Southern Health and broader issues, such as the abject failure adequately to investigate preventable deaths?
As the Secretary of State said in December, such issues are not confined to one trust. The Ofsted-style ratings that he previously mentioned will make a difference only if there is proper accountability and the ability to take action to make real improvements to patient care and patient safety. The families have behaved with such dignity and tenacity, and we owe them a debt of gratitude, but it should not be left to them alone to push for accountability.
I listened carefully to what the Minister told the House, but I remain unconvinced that enough has changed. Four months ago, we heard similar reassurances. Today, we are debating the Government’s failure to act. The time for yet more warm words and hollow reassurances is over. We need action, and we need it now.

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her response. We are not actually debating the Government’s failure to respond at all. The Secretary of State did exactly what he said he was going to do, and the CQC’s inquiry and work that followed can be seen in the report that was produced last week. The report contains a number of further concerns—there is no doubt about that—and people are right to be angry, but there is a process to find out what is going on and to do something about it and that process is in place. That is what NHS Improvement is doing and it is important that that is done.
There is an issue of urgency, which is really important. There are things that are discovered and things take time to get done. I am not content with that in any way, but the process is in place to do something about that. The CQC has been engaged and has ruled out no option for further action. Its options are quite extensive, including prosecution for things that it has found. The process started by the Secretary of State is not yet finished. That my right hon. Friend has demonstrated his commitment to patient safety from the moment he walked into that office cannot be denied by anyone, and this is a further part of that.
I asked the same question that the hon. Lady asked about safety directly to the CQC this afternoon, and I spoke to Dr Paul Lelliott who compiled the report. I asked whether people are safe at the foundation trust today. People are safe because, as we know, the CQC has powers to shut down places immediately if there is a risk to patients. It has not done so, but I am persuaded that if it had found such a risk it would have closed things down. There is therefore no risk to safety in the terms that the hon. Lady suggests.
On the chief executive’s position, the power to deal with management change is held by NHS Improvement. I also offer a brief word of caution. There is a track record of Ministers speaking out, at great cost, about the removal of people in positions over which they have no authority. That is understandable in situations of great concern when an angry response seems right, but it is not an appropriate response. The chair has gone, and processes are available should any more management changes be necessary, which is important. Colleagues in the House can say whatever they like, but a Minister cannot and must say that appropriate processes can be followed, because that is right and proper.
I do not yet know about an inquiry, and I want to wait and see what comes out of the further work being done in the trust. I do not rule out some form of further inquiry, but an inquiry is physically being carried out now by the actions taking place on the ground. What needs to follow is urgent action to respond to what the CQC has said, and a long drawn-out public inquiry is not necessarily the right answer. More work might be necessary, but I need to consider that in relation to further work being done at the trust.
On preventable deaths, as I made clear in my statement, I am sure that not enough attention has been given to those cases that require further investigation across the system, often dating back many years and preceding this Government. We have turned our attention to that issue, and we will make changes because such inequality must end.

Sarah Wollaston: The report into Southern Health makes disturbing reading, but we will never tackle unacceptable levels of health inequality and early deaths among those who live with learning disability and mental health issues unless we address safety and risk. Will the Minister go further on the mortality review and set out how we can see where differences exist around the country? Will he reassure the House that duty of candour will in future be more than a tick in the box?

Alistair Burt: A tick in the box for duty of candour, which the report mentioned, was unacceptable—it must mean much more than that. The learning disability mortality review programme is important and will support local areas to review the deaths of people with learning disabilities, and use that information to help improve services. In time, it will also show at a national level whether things are improving for people with learning disabilities, and whether fewer people are dying from preventable causes. That review is already under way in a pilot in the north-east in Cumbria, which will help to inform us how the programme operates as it is rolled out. Plans are in place to roll out that review across all regions of England between now and 2018, with pilots commencing in other parts of the country between 2016 and 2017. That work has never been done before, and it is right that we are doing it now.

Alan Whitehead: As the Minister and other hon. Members have said, Friday’s report makes grim reading for the many families and patients in the care of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. The Minister said that those failings are not isolated to that trust, but are on a much wider scale. In light of that, is he seriously considering a public inquiry  that will get to the heart of the underlying factors in those matters? Patients and families who use this trust—some of whom are my constituents—must be reassured that those underlying issues are being properly considered and not brushed under the carpet.

Alistair Burt: It is vital that they are not brushed under the carpet, and I will come to that in a second. It is important to put it on the record that there are some positive aspects of this report, some of which relate to Southampton. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will already have seen those, with the trust being commended for its work on the community pathway. On the substance of his question, I spoke honestly a moment ago when I said that I really do not know at this stage whether an inquiry is the right thing to do. I am well aware of the seriousness of this matter, of the questions the families have raised, and of the fact that this has been going on for some time. The important thing is both to effect change and to find out what has happened. The CQC report—the extensive work that has already been done—is in depth, public and transparent. That may well have the answers that are required, but if not, something further may be needed, which is why I have an open mind on this. The most important thing is to give the reassurance that certain things have happened, which the CQC report cannot yet do because that is where the work is needed and where the work is going on now.

Maria Miller: Our constituents, particularly those with learning disabilities, need to have confidence in the complex set of services provided by Southern Health. The failings that have been identified are completely unacceptable and disturbing, and I welcome the Minister’s statement and the CQC’s action with the warning notice it has issued. Will he join me in paying tribute to the dedicated staff at Southern Health facilities that are not implicated in these serious problems, including Parklands hospital in my constituency, which provides acute wards for adults needing intensive psychiatric care, in a much-needed facility that has very dedicated staff running it?

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. When I got the report over the weekend and turned to the summary of findings, I saw that the first positive summary finding was:
“Staff were kind, caring, and supportive and treated patients with respect and dignity. Patients reported that some staff went the ‘extra mile’.”
It is important to put that on the record; it does not minimise the things that are wrong, but in a trust that is so large, covering such a wide area and so many people, it is important that that good work is recognised, and that errors and faults of management and governance should not be laid at their door. I pay tribute to those staff, who work in incredibly difficult circumstances.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I just note in passing that four Members on the Opposition Benches are standing and none of them hails from the area covered by the trust. That does not preclude a question, but I should just make the point that the question must be about this trust and this set of circumstances, rather than, as is commonly deployed  in this House, “and elsewhere”. It is just about this matter, in this situation, covered by this trust—a matter that will be approached with great dexterity, I am sure, by Ann Clwyd.

Ann Clwyd: I will attempt that, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask the following: how long does it take to effect change? Some 45 years ago, the Ely hospital inquiry took place, under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Howe, and recommendations were made. I took part, writing a report on the condition of mental health facilities throughout Wales. We are talking about some 45 years here, and it seems to me that things are going at such a slow pace that we will be asking the same question again in 45 years’ time.

Alistair Burt: The frustration in the NHS is that although what the right hon. Lady says is not true in some places, it is in others; the special measures process in effect at the moment has effected change and has done so more quickly. There are other places where that does not happen. I am concerned that for too long in mental health the sense of defensiveness which we know has characterised parts of the NHS for too long has probably had too great a grip, and we have not always got things done more quickly or demanded that things are done with the degree of urgency that we would expect, on behalf of constituents. I am very determined that any difficulties in getting things done locally in trusts when they need to be done will not be aided or abetted by any lack of urgency in the Department or the upper reaches of the NHS with which we have contact. The concern to make sure that urgency is there is rightfully expressed by the House, and we have to see that that is delivered.

Julian Lewis: In 2011 and 2012, I was locked in a bitter confrontation with Southern Health Foundation Trust over the determination of its top management to close no fewer than 58 out of its 165 acute in-patient beds for people suffering from mental health illnesses and breakdowns. It is the only constituency issue over which I have ever suffered sleepless nights, and I failed to stop the trust closing the Winsor ward in the relatively new Woodhaven hospital in my constituency. Today, apart from this terrible issue about the deaths, the system remains overfull, the beds remain too few and I understand that at least 80% of the in-patients are people who have been sectioned, leaving people a very low chance of getting an elective bed from Southern Health unless they are prepared to wait a long time. Can the CQC look into this wider issue, given that it has so many other serious concerns about the trust?

Alistair Burt: The CQC’s powers are extensive and I know that it will absolutely know what my hon. Friend says. The debate comparing the provision of beds for treatment with community treatment has been going on for some time in mental health, and different pathways are taken by different trusts. Some trusts put more people into beds, while others are doing more in the community. The general sense is that more should be available in the community, but that must not preclude the availability of emergency beds when they are needed. I will ensure that the CQC is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about that particular trust.

Paula Sherriff: Are the failures at Southern Health a symptom of the growing and unsustainable pressure being placed on the mental health and learning disability services? In the context of increased demand, significant pressure on beds, higher thresholds for care, staffing cuts and shortages, how can the Minister guarantee that mental health and learning disability trusts are able to do their jobs?

Alistair Burt: Let me point out that we have announced an increased resource for mental health of £11.7 billion. The extra £1 billion that the Mental Health Taskforce recommended being spent by 2020 will be spent, and it will be spent right across the board from perinatal mental health to crisis care. It will also improve baselines to ensure that the governance and quality of foundation trusts are good enough, and we are watching what CQCs are spending. Yes, we recognise that there has been historic underfunding from Governments of all characters, but we are determined to improve it and the money is there.

Caroline Nokes: All too often it is our constituents with mental health problems and learning difficulties who find it hardest to get their voices heard. Those who are patients of Southern Health are not in a position to call for urgent change. I note that the Minister has said that the delivery plan is being evaluated, but can he reassure us that that is being done with the utmost speed so that we see improvements on the ground and not just more reports gathering dust?

Alistair Burt: Today, I met departmental officials and spoke to the regional director responsible for NHS improvement and, as I mentioned earlier, the deputy chief inspector of the CQC who is responsible for this report. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in so far as it is up to me or the Department, that change will be adequately delivered with a sense of urgency, because, as she rightly says, patients and families have, in some cases, waited much too long for this. If warm words are to mean anything, we must show that delivery follows.

Greg Mulholland: The failure of care for people with mental health issues, learning disabilities and autism has been shocking and the board should go. Equally shocking is that, 11 months before Connor Sparrowhawk’s tragic and unnecessary death, failures had been identified but not acted on. What can the Minister do to ensure that, as part of a robust inspection regime, when failures are identified they are acted on and done so very quickly to prevent such failures again?

Alistair Burt: Over the past 12 months I have met a number of families who have been victims in similar circumstances—some had children who had been placed badly in an inappropriate place, and, in one or two cases, death had been the result. My colleagues and I are determined to do whatever we can to break down those situations where people feel that they have to fight for everything, and where they find closed doors against them when they want to challenge something. All too often in mental health, when people are challenged, they respond defensively. The whole transforming care process stems from Winterbourne View and the  determination of the NHS and the board that monitors and oversees that process, including those who have mental health issues themselves and their advocates. The concerns that have been expressed in the past will not go completely, but I am sure the system is better placed now to deal with them and to listen to people more seriously than was the case, tragically, in the past.

Suella Fernandes: Does the Minister agree that the resignation of the chairman is a measure of the seriousness of the issue, and that after two damning reports, serious changes in the leadership are needed? What reassurance can he provide to my constituents in Fareham, such as the family of David West, that the regulatory bodies have the powers necessary if intervention is required?

Alistair Burt: I know that my hon. Friend has followed these matters closely for her constituents. Since last year there have been nine changes to the board, and the chair of the board left last weekend. NHS Improvement has the powers to alter governance, and I know from speaking to NHS Improvement that it takes that power and responsibility extremely seriously. The balance is between ensuring continuity and stability so that what the trust has promised is delivered, and wholesale change, which would provide an opportunity for further delay and prevent the work going on, but I know that NHS Improvement is very aware of its responsibilities in relation to governance, as I hope is the trust itself.

Debbie Abrahams: It is right that this House legislated for parity of esteem for mental health care; I am proud that we did that. I recognise the Minister’s commitment to quick resolution so that we can implement recommendations to address the failings of the trust. Will he consider an independent inquiry similar to the first independent inquiry into Mid Staffs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) initiated in 2010?

Alistair Burt: I can do nothing more than repeat what I said earlier. I am aware that there might be circumstances in which an inquiry would bring out more and would demonstrate the degree of concern that colleagues in the House might find appropriate and that the families and others would understand. My first duty is to make sure that everyone is safe in the trust and to ensure the completion of the work that needs to be done to deliver what the CQC has found. Even after this very thorough work by CQC, which is transparent—that is why we are talking about it today—if anything further is needed, I will give it genuine and serious consideration.

Kit Malthouse: The Minister is right to call the report disturbing. It has caused alarm and uncertainty across my constituency, and it is with the uncertainty that I hope he can help. In common with other Members, I am keen to know whether he has a hard date by which the trust is to be reviewed again. If it were to fail that hurdle, what would the next action be—revocation of the licence or further improvements? He will understand that most of my constituents want to see a deadline for compliance and after that, significant change that might mean a new era at Southern Health.

Alistair Burt: The best way that I can convey it is to say that constant monitoring is being done. First, the improvement director, who was appointed not by the trust, but by NHS Improvement, is there. In due course he will have a constant presence, but the monitoring needs to be done on a very regular basis. Also, the CQC has made it clear that should there be any need for further unannounced inspections, it will carry them out, so the trust is under constant notice that there can be a further inspection at any time. Further powers of the CQC include issuing another warning notice, varying and removing conditions of registration, monetary penalty notice for prescribed offences, suspending registration, cancelling registration, and prosecution. I understand from speaking to Mr Paul Lelliott that none of these measures has been ruled out.

Marie Rimmer: It is that very point I wish to talk about. The duty of candour was going to give us so much more strength, but it is not being applied as yet. It is a statutory duty, placed on people carrying out regulated activities. It can lead to prosecution by the CQC, including without a warning notice. Will the Minister assure me that he will watch carefully to make sure that the CQC uses those powers appropriately? If it does not, we are once again failing these very vulnerable people.

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. If we now have a system where there is, quite rightly, a degree of autonomy, and Ministers’ responsibility is to make sure that the process and the system work well, Ministers cannot make all the decisions personally, but we do have to make sure that decisions that need to be taken are taken and, if not, that there is a good explanation why.
The CQC’s powers have been strengthened. Just a few months ago, we had the first case of a care home owner being jailed because of the care given to people in their home. While I recognise that the work done in caring for vulnerable people is complex and difficult, and that prosecution will not be the right answer in every case, knowing that powers are there is really important. The hon. Lady’s anger is appropriate, and I know the CQC takes these powers very seriously.

Bob Stewart: Does the NHS improvement director now have the power to go into any Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust facility to  assess and neutralise threats we have learned about that have resulted in people dying?

Alistair Burt: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will not say things from the Dispatch Box that I do not know, and I do not know the precise powers of the improvement director, although I know the CQC has exactly the powers my hon. Friend suggests. However, the purpose of appointing the improvement director, and indeed of NHS Improvement’s appointment of the new chair, Tim Smart—the former chief executive of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust—is to put in place people who know what they are doing, know what they are looking for and can authorise others to make sure that nothing is being covered up and that everything is transparent.

Chris Heaton-Harris: In this sorry saga, what assurances can the Minister give about current levels of care and safety to the families of patients with learning disabilities who are in the care of Southern Health?

Alistair Burt: I think the best thing, genuinely, is to refer to the CQC report. It highlights good practice and good work in relation to staff in a variety of places and community pathways and in relation to work being done for those with learning disabilities. This is a large trust, covering many areas and many different facilities, and it would be quite wrong to assume that the standard of care is uniform across the board in terms of the criticisms that have been made. The criticisms are very real and very strong, but the work done by individual members of staff caring for people is reported by the CQC to be good. Again, in terms of safety, I am reassured that the CQC has powers and that it has assured me that, if it needed to use those powers in relation to safety and risk to patients, it would do so.

John Bercow: I thank the Minister and other colleagues who have taken part in these exchanges. I content myself simply with the observation that they have been a very important treatment of a very important subject. Perhaps, on behalf of the House, I can express the hope that the Hansard text of these exchanges will be supplied to Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. It needs to know that we have treated of it and what has been said—politely and with notable restraint, but with very real anxiety—in all parts of the House about the situation within its aegis. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!]

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week there were a couple of understandable occasions when people in the Chamber—Members of Parliament—broke into applause. This can be quite awkward for some of us—Conservative Members and Opposition Members—who know about the conventions of the House, because we feel unable to join in the applause. Could you give guidance about what is the current practice? If you uphold the tradition that we do not have applause—although I do not wish to pre-empt your view on this—could you let it be known more generally to Members of the House of Commons whether we should break into applause, or not, on occasion?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his great courtesy in raising it in the way that he did. The short answer is that it is the long-established convention of this House that we do not applaud. For what it is worth, to the best of my recollection, I have never myself done so. If he is asking me whether I would prefer it to remain that way, the short answer is that I would. I think that the convention that we do not applaud but register our approval in other ways is a valuable one. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has raised his point in an extremely polite way, is that as far as the Chair is concerned, each situation has to be judged on its merits. I am very conscious that I am the servant of the House. If, spontaneously, a large group of Members bursts into applause, sometimes the most prudent approach is to let it take its course. However, I would much prefer it if it did not happen, unless the House consciously wills a change, and I am not aware that the House as a whole has done so. In that respect, I sense that the hon. Gentleman and I, not for the first time and hopefully not for the last, are on the same side.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In fairness to the Members, usually newer Members, who occasionally do this, it is worth pointing out that it usually tends to happen on a particular, spontaneous, unusual occasion, and not routinely. If it did happen routinely, we would end up with organised cheering of the sort that we sometimes get on the more downmarket versions of talent shows on TV. That would not be the direction in which we would want to go.

John Bercow: That would be thoroughly undesirable. The more unusual, or even occasional, the better. For it to become the norm would, I think, be deprecated by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), deprecated by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and deprecated by the Chair. The hon. Member for Lichfield asked me to find a way of communicating more widely my view on this matter, and I hope I have just taken that opportunity. There is no slight directed at any individual, nor any adverse comment on any particular occasion, but usually our traditions are for a reason, and to find that we elide or morph into a new situation as a result of inactivity or happenstance is undesirable. If the House wants consciously to change things, then let it, but as far as I am concerned it has not yet done so. I hope that is helpful.

Kate Green: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware of a report published over the weekend by Citizens Advice indicating a 25% increase in the number of people coming forward with problems relating to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. This follows hot on the heels of a report shortly before the Easter recess from the Equality and Human Rights Commission indicating that three quarters of women have had negative experiences of work associated with pregnancy or maternity. I am very pleased to see the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, in the Chamber, because her Committee is conducting an important piece of research into this, and an inquiry. However, there has been no comment at all from Government Ministers and so far no indication that time will be made available in the Chamber to debate this important subject. Can you tell me, Mr Speaker, if Ministers have approached you indicating their intention to make a statement on the Citizens Advice report or on the EHRC report, with which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was associated?

John Bercow: The answer to that is no. As far as I am aware, I have not been approached, certainly not directly, and I am not conscious of any document or missive circulating in my office on this matter. It occurs to me that Work and Pensions questions take place on Monday next week. That is by no means the only, or even necessarily the best, opportunity to raise the matter, but it is one such opportunity. If that does not suit the hon. Lady or other opportunities are sought, they may materialise. As far as the House as an employer is concerned, I am not aware that there is a problem, and I would be very concerned if there were. We must take steps to keep ourselves informed to satisfy ourselves that best practice, as well as the law, is followed.

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might have seen recent press reports that a police unit tasked with spying on alleged extremists intent on committing serious crimes has been wasting its time and, indeed, taxpayers’ money monitoring members of the Green party, including myself. Could you give me advice, Mr Speaker, on the best way to raise the matter so that we can get the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the methods of surveillance; the legal power supposedly used in order to justify that surveillance; and, most importantly, why citizens lawfully engaging in legitimate political activity have been targeted by the police in this way?

John Bercow: This is a rather disturbing matter. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is suggesting that there is any interference with her work as a Member of Parliament. If that were so, that would be an exceptionally serious matter, but it would be effectively a matter of privilege, about which, in conformity with convention, she should write to me and it would then be taken forward as appropriate.
Beyond that, I can only say that the matter in question is not one for me. It does sound a very bizarre situation. I find it very curious to think that the hon. Lady is being, or might be, subject to some sort of surveillance in relation to her activities as a Member of Parliament. I am not aware of that. I think that I have to advise her  that she must find other means by which to air her concerns. If she will not take it amiss, I will simply say that, knowing both her intelligence and her indefatigability, there is no way that finding other means to air her concern will be beyond her very considerable capabilities. Perhaps we can leave it there for today, but if she needs to come back about the matter, which is potentially very serious, she should do so.
If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion—a further opportunity for a display of the intelligence and indefatigability of Caroline Lucas.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY (EUROPEAN UNION)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.23)

Caroline Lucas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent commission of inquiry to examine ways of improving parliamentary and other public scrutiny of ministerial mandates and outcomes in relation to European Union institutions, policies and legislation; and for connected purposes.
In 50 days, this country will go to the polls to take the most important single decision of a generation, namely that of whether to remain in the EU or to leave. I am strongly in favour of staying in, and I will continue to make the case that we are stronger in, greener in and fairer in. In today’s globalised world, we can achieve so much more by working together with our closest neighbours than we can by going it alone.
I make this speech not as a lover of everything about the EU. Indeed, I understand it when some constituents ask, “Why stay part of an institution that has faults?” or, “Why spend time reforming the EU when we could leave it instead?” Many concerns about the EU and how it operates are valid—as, indeed, are concerns about how Westminster operates—but they are not a reason to walk away.
Moreover, such concerns are often exploited by populist political opportunists with toxic xenophobic messages. Outright fearmongering about foreigners is again rearing its ugly head across the continent. What worries me most about the rise of this divisive politics is that it erases from history the series of events that led to the formation of the EU, and it is also remarkably complacent about the future.
The EU is not an abstract project born of idle philosophising in continental think-tanks. The imperative to share sovereignty in Europe and to ensure that economic competition does not again spill over into conflict was built on the blood and bones of the Europeans killed in the terrible first half of the 20th century. The EU is a pragmatic response to our failure to manage the forces of nationalism and industrialisation, and I would argue that it has done much to reduce the aggressive ambitions of European elites who have disputed control of the continent for centuries. For me, one of the foremost reasons for staying in the EU is that it makes peace more likely. We cannot wish away the EU’s problems, however, and nor can we simply urge people to love it because of its history of peace making. Instead, we must be bold in reforming how the EU works and making sure that our constituents have more of a say over what happens at EU level.
Data suggest that British people are among the least knowledgeable about the EU. That is not their fault, but it highlights the urgent need to ensure that the public are able to be more engaged with EU policy and legislation. The fundamental point is that there are dozens of things that can be done unilaterally here in the UK radically to improve the accountability for, and engagement with, EU decision making, and that is what my Bill is about.
After 10 years working as an MEP in the European Parliament, I am in no doubt that the EU needs far-reaching reform. One major set of reforms could happen tomorrow, because implementation is entirely in the gift of the UK Government. No agreement or even discussion with other EU countries is required, and those reforms are the subject of my Bill. They build on proposals from the Electoral Reform Society, the Hansard Society, the House of Lords European Union Committee and the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which have already done much important work in this area.
One of the proposals is that the UK Parliament should engage with the Government’s negotiating position before European Council meetings as well as after—that practice is routine in many member states. We need a more effective model of scrutiny to allow Parliament to hold the Government fully to account regarding its dealings with other European states. The Hansard Society has pointed to the fact that our system is largely one of document-based scrutiny that takes place only once policy is decided. We could easily improve the scrutiny of Ministers at monthly departmental oral questions—including topical questions—by setting aside specific time for the coverage of European issues related to their policy areas.
Our Select Committee system should also provide a high-profile powerhouse for scrutinising EU policies. To make that happen, the European Scrutiny Committee should not just be reactive; it should have the capacity proactively to choose what to follow up, in the same way as a departmental Select Committee. We need to raise the profile of the House’s three European Committees, which cover particular Departments. I have much sympathy with the suggestion that the membership of those committees should be made permanent so that experience and expertise can be built up.
The Electoral Reform Society points out that the House of Lords is considered to provide exemplary scrutiny of the EU, with six Sub-Committees covering various aspects of EU policy, as well as the stand-alone European Union Committee. It is an irony that the part of the British Parliament that provides the greatest scrutiny of the EU is the part that is both unelected and unaccountable, and it is time for that to change.
Credit should be given to the European Scrutiny Committee, which has for some time been reviewing its links with departmental Select Committees. For example, it has examined the role of an informal network of EU contact points on each Select Committee team, as happens in the Scottish Parliament. The European Scrutiny Committee can require our Select Committees to develop and provide an opinion on a particular document. However, Commons Select Committees often do not look at legislation, and they do not have the capacity to do so, which means that coverage of European Union matters may be patchy and inconsistent.
The commission of inquiry provided for in the Bill would examine the very strong case for expanding the Commons Select Committee system so that it could proactively scrutinise EU proposals and legislation. I recognise that in order to manage the workload, some kind of Sub-Committee process would be needed, and the whole system would need to be properly resourced, but putting that in place could make a real difference to scrutiny and accountability. We also need better mechanisms to give devolved Parliaments and Assemblies the ability  to hold UK Ministers to account on EU negotiations, and devolved Ministers should have the right to participate in European Council meetings. Those are just some examples of changes the UK could unilaterally make to improve accountability and our scrutiny of EU decision making. Indeed, a House of Lords EU Committee report in 2015 identified no fewer than 35 such measures.
Under the Bill, we should also consider reforms that UK Ministers could champion at an EU level. The same House of Lords Committee report has repeated its previous call for a formally recognised green card system. At present, that is just an informal mechanism that is intended to enable the Parliaments of EU member states to join forces to make proposals to the European Commission to initiate EU policy and legislation. The first green card, on food waste, was proposed by the House of Lords and submitted to the Commission last year. This is an important means of strengthening national Parliaments’ ability to take joint action proactively to make proposals, not just to react to them, and of revitalising our democracy in Europe. It also means strengthening the role and work of the offices of national Parliaments in Brussels so that we can enhance parliamentary co-operation among member states on a wide range of issues.
The European Commission is one of the less democratic parts of the EU and we urgently need better ways to hold our European Commissioners to account. The 28 European Commissioners appointed by Governments act almost as a Cabinet, with each Commissioner being responsible for a certain brief. The Commission is too powerful—it proposes EU legislation, manages and implements EU budgets and policies, and enforces EU decisions—yet the channels of representation are byzantine, and there is a serious lack of transparency about how we select our Commissioners. The significant gap between the European Commission and the people obscures channels of accountability, but we can do something about that. The remit of the commission proposed by my Bill should include an assessment of what mechanisms we could use in the UK better to hold our EU Commissioner to account, and to allow for transparency in and scrutiny of their role. In that way, we could begin to remedy the situation in which most voters neither know nor care who our European Commissioners are or what they stand for.
We need new mechanisms to ensure that Parliaments can undertake a more proactive role. It is unacceptably and unnecessarily difficult to follow what our Ministers are doing on our behalf in the EU, let alone for parliamentarians and the public to have meaningful input to shape it. That is a big part of the perceived democratic deficit associated with EU decision making. There is so much that we could and should do, unilaterally in the UK, to make that better, and there are actions that we can take at EU level.
Of course, much bigger reforms are needed, such as with regard to the relative powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission, but the Bill’s purpose is to identify the measures that we can take here and now in the UK, if there is sufficient political will. We already have powers to make the EU more democratic and accountable, if we choose to take them, and there are clear steps we could and should take in this House. I hope that, on 24 June, the UK not only will have voted to remain part of the EU, but will grasp the opportunity to reform our continued participation,  and that we in this House will create a positive gateway to a new and revived strand of vital political transparency, participation and accountability. The reforms I have outlined will not, in themselves, save the EU from a crisis of accountability, but they will make a big difference and will certainly help.

Edward Leigh: We are a week from Parliament being prorogued prior to the Queen’s Speech. If we entered some kind of green dreamland, with the Opposition and the Government agreeing to accept the Bill and it becoming law—of course, we all know that that is not going to happen—do you know what I think would be the result, Mr Deputy Speaker? I think the effect on the European Union would be “nul points”—absolute zero.
We could have as many Select Committees as we like. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has spent a lifetime on Select Committees scrutinising the European Union. It is true that we already summon the Prime Minister to our Chamber after European Council meetings and he spends two hours answering our questions, but how much difference does that make? We could also summon him to appear before such meetings. We could do all the things that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) wants—and nothing would change.
What is the structure of the European Union? It is a unique construct in terms of democracy and world history. We have a Parliament representing the people of the EU that has no ability to initiate legislation, which can be initiated only by an unaccountable bureaucracy— the Commission. In what Parliament or nation is that replicated?
What of the Council of Ministers? I have served, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), on the Council. Were we—or is it now —concerned overtly about what was being discussed by deputies in the various national Parliaments? No. It is all done by making deals through the night.

John Redwood: Is not the Bill simply putting a colourful and pretty ribbon on the tail of a very hungry tiger, the EU, that will go on eating up our powers, taking our taxes and forcing up taxes on green products?

Edward Leigh: Absolutely. There is one way in which we can genuinely reform the EU. The Prime Minister tells us that we should remain in a reformed EU. Is there a single hon. Member on either side of this argument, or on either side of the House, who believes that the Prime Minister has reformed the EU? Despite his best efforts, no one believes that. Everyone knows that the negotiation was, to all intents and purposes, a sham to enable him to come back to the British people and try to convince them that this unreformed and unreformable body had indeed been reformed. Everyone in Europe knows that it is unreformed and unreformable, because of the very structure that I have talked about.
The fundamental problem is that we can have as many Select Committees as we like, and summon Ministers here as often as possible, but this Parliament is not supreme. That was the fundamental dilemma that our  predecessors, the Labour Government in 1948 and the Conservative Government in 1957, were faced with. They were very happy to try to create European free trade—more free trade in iron and steel in 1948, and more free trade in 1957—but it was made clear to them by Mr Schuman, Mr Monnet and others that this was a project that would inevitably lead to federation. That is what it is about—it is, in the terms of the book by Hugo Young, this blessed plot. The people of Europe are not being consulted. The European construct is designed to ensure that the deals and the progress towards European federation are made in secret. When I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, we went to the European Court of Auditors. The accounts have never been signed off. The EU is a body riddled not only with waste and incompetence, but with corruption.
Even if the Bill were to become law, it would achieve nothing, but there is one way in which we can achieve something. I simply pose a question: if one of the most important countries in the European Union were to vote to leave it, what would happen? We would not be talking about some little ten-minute rule Bill that would be ignored by the rest of the European Union, even if became law. Do we not think that there would be a most profound electric shock through the whole system? Do we not think that our leaders in Europe might then sit down for a moment, ponder the fate of their construct and say that it should be designed to achieve what the European peoples want, which is peace and friendship?
Peace and friendship have, fundamentally, been created by NATO—at this point, I commend to Members an excellent article by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) making that precise point. NATO is a construct that we can indeed emulate because it is not a supranational body. It is a treaty-based body, but it does not impose its laws or supremacy on the peoples of Europe.
What the peoples of Europe want is what our own people really want: free trade. If we were to take this historic opportunity in June, I do not think for a moment that the world would fall in—it is moving towards European free trade. The very worst thing that could happen would be that we would have most favoured nation status and would have to pay tariffs of 5% on most of our exports to the European Union, but that is not going to happen anyway, because there is a massive balance of trade surplus against us. A deal can be constructed, based on free trade.
Much more important than what we think or want, however, is what might be created in the rest of Europe: a Europe of nation states; a Europe that was the original vision of General de Gaulle; a Europe where national Parliaments have genuine powers, and a genuine veto; a genuinely democratic Europe. That is our challenge, and there are millions of people in this country who will seize that challenge and vote for freedom in the referendum in June.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Lucas, Mr Pat McFadden, Tim Farron, Mr Graham Allen, Stephen Gethins, Stephen Kinnock, Hywel Williams, Greg Mulholland and Ms Margaret Ritchie present the Bill.
Caroline Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed (Bill 171).

Housing And Planning Bill (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Planning Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Brandon Lewis.)

HOUSING AND PLANNING BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Housing and Planning Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 2 November 2015 (Housing and Planning Bill (Programme)) and 5 January 2016 (Housing and Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to an end at the moment of interruption.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

Subsequent stages
(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Brandon Lewis.)
Question agreed to.

HOUSING AND PLANNING BILL

Consideration of Lords amendments

Lindsay Hoyle: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 37 to 58, 91, 184 and 185. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.
Clause 2

What is a starter home?

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 9 and 10.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 184, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 47, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 54, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 55, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 57, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 58, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59 to 96, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191 and 195 to 239.

Brandon Lewis: I am glad to be back at the Dispatch Box and returning to the Housing and Planning Bill this afternoon. We are now in the final month of the first year of this Parliament: a Parliament that has seen a majority Conservative Government returned to the House—a Government with a clear mandate to deliver the largest programme of house building for a generation.
It is immensely fitting to be here this afternoon having come from Mr Speaker’s own garden, where construction people have been showing the importance of house building across our country and of bringing in  more skills to deliver the homes that we are determined to build. We want to place home ownership within the reach of thousands of people who never dreamt that they could achieve it, and we want to ensure that, in doing so, we make the best use of our social housing so that it continues to support those most in need.
The Bill before us today is a slightly different beast from the one we passed to the other place earlier this year. Today we will discuss rather more than the five or six amendments we traditionally see come from the other House. The vast majority of these I will ask this House to accept.
Debates in both Houses have been productive and resulted in improvements to the Bill. I want to be clear from the start. I have heard many, mainly on the Opposition Benches, say that we should have waited before debating the Bill. That would have meant the Government’s having to sit idly by, ticking forms and double checking that what the public elected us to do was what they actually wanted. We are debating the Bill early in this Parliament so that it can take effect as soon as possible and we can get those new homes built for those who aspire to have them.
Starter homes will now be available to more people, including couples in which one partner is over 40, injured service personnel and bereaved partners of service personnel. There will be better protections for vulnerable people, thereby reducing the risk of properties being incorrectly declared abandoned. Our plan to replace higher-value properties expected to be sold with at least one new property is now explicit in the Bill, meaning we could not be clearer about our intention to increase the number of affordable homes across our country.

Dawn Butler: Will the Minister please clarify what “higher-value properties” means? How much?

Brandon Lewis: I will deal with that in a few moments, when I come to higher-value assets and other aspects before us.
We have increased the protection we give to our rural areas, recognising the unique value of our countryside and the particular challenge of providing affordable homes there. I trust, therefore, that there is much on which we can agree with the other place.

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that the idea of more affordable homes for sale is extremely popular? I am getting requests. People want to get on with it, however, so will he say how long the process might now take?

Brandon Lewis: I hope it will not take us too long, that the other House will accept our points today and that the Opposition might come on board and vote with us to make sure we deliver affordable homes for people to buy—

Clive Betts: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will finish answering the last intervention, and then I will come to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is right. Whether through Twitter or email, I am hearing from a lot of people wanting to know when we will be able to deliver for the 86% of the population who want the chance to own a home of their own. It is absolutely right that we make affordable homes about affordable ownership as well as affordable rent.

Clive Betts: The Select Committee pushed the Minister on his impact and financial assessment of the full costs and implications of his policies around the sale of higher-value council homes; on whether those would deliver the replacement of housing association properties; and on all the remedial work on brownfield sites. When will that analysis be produced? I see that the other day the Public Accounts Committee made exactly the same criticism as the Select Committee: there is no information for us to go on.

Brandon Lewis: It was rather surprising to see the PAC reviewing a policy that has not gone through the House yet and which will deliver more home ownership to more people across the country, whether through the extension of right to buy, which will benefit 1.3 million people, or the intervention on starter homes.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I give way to the Chairman of the PAC.

Meg Hillier: The Minister cited the PAC report published last Friday. Just to be clear, the Committee does look at issues in advance of their becoming law, to make sure that taxpayers’ money is protected in the process. He makes great play of providing more affordable homes for sale, but it is not clear how he will fund it or that there will be a like-for-like replacement of the homes he is forcing boroughs such as mine to sell in order to pay for them. Will he promise now to protect long-term social housing for the people in London who can afford nothing else, certainly not a starter home?

Brandon Lewis: In terms of making good use of our social housing stock, I am sure that the hon. Lady will support us in the votes later today, if there are any, on high-income social tenants. If she is that interested in delivering more housing in this country, however, I am surprised that this is the first time she has engaged directly with the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who mentioned the PAC report, asked about the data behind the policy. As I outlined at the end of last week, there are 16 million pieces of data impacting on this policy.

David Lammy: The Minister has made a lot of “affordable”. Can he define it? Is it right that an affordable starter home in London will be round about £450,000?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman might like to go back to look at the evidence given to the Committee that scrutinised the Bill or at the Bill itself. The £450,000 is a cap. He needs to look at the average price a  first-time buyer pays for a home in this country, which is £181,000. If we then include a 20% discount and allow the purchase with a deposit of just 5%, that really changes affordability. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support the chance for more Londoners to get on the housing ladder, while understanding equally that this is not the only thing we are doing to promote affordable home ownership. There is a £4.7 billion scheme out there now for shared ownership, which also plays an important part, particularly in places such as London.

Meg Hillier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so that I can clarify both the role of the Public Accounts Committee and my role as Chair of it. We had a forensic investigation by the National Audit Office. We set out to be helpful to the taxpayer and to the Government in implementing their policy, ensuring affordability. We set out the key questions that needed answering before such a policy could be delivered. If I may say so, this Minister is being very cavalier in sweeping aside the findings of our report, which were well-measured, cross-party and unanimous.

Brandon Lewis: I have huge respect for the hon. Lady, but I was not sweeping anything aside at all. What I am more focused on—I make no apologies for it—is ensuring that we counter the cavalier attitude of the Labour party, which wants to do down people who want the chance to have a home of their own that they can afford to buy. We are determined to deliver our manifesto promise on that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Brandon Lewis: Let me make a bit more progress; I shall give way again later.
There is much on which we can agree with the other place here today, but let me be clear that, as we have just touched on, there are some areas where we cannot. We are determined to deliver for Britain on our election promises. The manifesto on which this Government were elected set out a very clear statement of intent about a viable extension of the right to buy, paid for by the sale of higher-value housing, and about 200,000 starter homes by the end of this Parliament.

Jake Berry: My constituents in Rossendale and Darwen look at many of the arguments of Labour Members and say that they are completely London focused. What we in Lancashire want are starter homes that people can buy at a discount and an extension of other affordable housing schemes. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with everyone who lives in Lancashire and says, “Let’s get on with it. We want to buy a home; we want to live in an affordable home. Let’s not just talk about London”?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I travel around the country, I find that people are frustrated and want us to get on with the policies that they elected us to deliver. That is because they see that Labour Members are trying to stall them through political posturing at pretty much every opportunity.
Let me also say, however, that some are understandably focused on London, where there is real pressure. We have my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park  (Zac Goldsmith) to thank because we worked with him to ensure that for every home sold in London, at least two homes will be built, driving a direct increase in housing supply.

Chris Philp: I must say to the Minister, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), that starter homes will work in many London boroughs, too. In my borough of Croydon, the average starter home will cost £190,000. With a help-to-buy mortgage, a £10,000 deposit is necessary and a couple, each earning £22,500, can afford to buy. In Croydon, as I say, it will work.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend highlights how this policy is about delivering for people on the ground. While Labour Members want to pontificate, we are going to stay focused on delivering homes for people across our country and here in the capital city of London.

Karen Buck: We need a policy to fit all parts of the country, including London. In inner London, however, starter homes will come in at £450,000. We have to speak the language of priorities. Is the Minister really telling us that a home that requires an income of £77,000 a year—more than an MP’s salary—is genuinely the best priority for public funds?

Brandon Lewis: I am tempted to use the inimitable phrase, “I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I gave a few moments ago.” As I said earlier, if she looks at the evidence, she will find that the price a first-time buyer pays is actually quite different. I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park; thanks to him, homes are already well below that price. The figure the hon. Lady mentioned is a cap; it is not the price at which these properties will be set—and I expect to see them much lower.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Brandon Lewis: Let me make some more progress on starter homes.
Amendment 1 requires on resale of the starter home the repayment of the 20% starter discount, reduced by 1% for each year of occupation for a period of 20 years. The average first-time buyer, we should bear in mind, spends just under seven years in their home—in fact, the average in the whole country is only about seven years. Asking someone to spend 20 years in a home, which they may have bought at the age of 30, and not to benefit from the discount that we promised until they are 50, simply does not stack up.
We want to ensure that starter homes are sold to people who are genuinely committed to living in an area, and not to people who simply want to secure a financial uplift by selling on quickly. However, we also want to support mobility. A balance must be struck. I propose that we disagree with Lords amendment 1, and substitute for it amendments (a), (b) and (c), which provide a power to implement a tapered approach to resale. The longer someone lives in a property, the more value that person will gain.
Our amendments provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the length of the taper period, and on the details of how the taper will operate. That will enable us to ensure that it is effective and delivers for people in the real world. The amendments set out two potential models for its operation. For example, when a starter home is sold, the first-time buyer must, if there is discount to be returned, pay a proportion of that discount to a specified party. That is the broad approach suggested in the other place, and I can see the logic of it. A body such as the Homes and Communities Agency could then use those funds to build more affordable homes.
As part of our consultation on starter homes regulations, we are seeking the views of developers, lenders and local authorities on how the taper would operate. We strongly believe that we should settle the matter through engagement with the sector, rather than placing the detail of restrictions in legislation. I am confident that that is the best way for us to meet our manifesto commitment on starter homes.

Bob Blackman: Will the taper be regional, or will it be a “one size fits all” for the whole United Kingdom? As has already been pointed out, property prices vary considerably, and it is important to ensure that the people who benefit are those who will actually live in the properties.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has made a good point. That is one reason why the strictures of legislation do not work in this context, and why it is important that we complete the consultation—which runs until 18 May in order to receive all the feedback and deal with this matter in regulations. As the discount is proportional, the difference in values will be dealt with by the way in which the percentages will work.

Gareth Thomas: The Minister will recall that at the end of last year, in Committee, there were a number of exchanges about housing co-operatives. As a result of changes in the Bill, housing co-ops that own properties are largely exempt from many of its provisions, whereas those that manage properties on behalf of local authorities will still be badly hit by many of the provisions. Potentially, housing co-op properties will be among the 100,000-plus properties currently owned by councils that are likely to be lost as a result of the Bill.
Might the Minister be willing to make a commitment, before the Bill returns to the other place, to look again at the specific impact on co-ops that manage properties on behalf of councils?

Brandon Lewis: I shall say a little about the provision concerned in a moment, but we will be very clear about the fact that a new home will be built for every home sold.

Jim Cunningham: How much consultation has the Minister had about the impact of the Bill with the voluntary sector on the one hand and local authorities on the other? He knows as well as I do that his Department will have conducted an impact assessment of costs and viability.

Brandon Lewis: We have worked across the sector, and it is clear that our starter home proposals are very popular. As Conservative Members have pointed out today, those in many areas are keen for us to get on with delivering more properties affordable to people who want to buy their own homes. There has been no such product in this country before.

Catherine West: The Minister speaks of affordability. Is he aware that the average deposit paid on properties in London is now £91,000?

Brandon Lewis: That is why we have extended and changed the arrangements. We now have the London Help to Buy scheme and we have starter homes coming in with a 20% discount. Shared ownership is also an important product, and we are determined to deliver 135,000 more shared ownership homes. The prospectus went out just a couple of weeks ago and the plan is to spend £4.7 billion in that area. Even in London, the deposit for such properties is closer to £4,000, which completely changes the affordability for people wanting to get into ownership.

Dawn Butler: One of the Lords amendments refers to the principle behind the Khan amendment, which is that when a unit of social housing is sold, another must be built in the local area in which the sale took place. Does the Minister agree with that?

Brandon Lewis: I shall deal with the hon. Lady’s question on high-value assets in just a few moments; I just want to finish dealing with starter homes.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the pledge to deliver two homes for every home sold is now on the face of the Bill. As I said earlier, our manifesto was very clear, and this House was very clear when it voted by majority of 91 to give the Bill a Second Reading. We will deliver the number of starter homes that we promised.

James Cartlidge: On the question of affordability and starter homes, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) mentioned the average deposit in London. However, a very big cash cost for any first-time buyer—or indeed any buyer—is stamp duty. Can the Minister confirm that the stamp duty payable on a starter home would apply to the discounted price and would therefore also be 20% lower?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The stamp duty will apply to the price paid for the property, so it will apply to that reduced price. That will provide a further benefit for people buying a new home.
We are absolutely determined to deliver the number of starter homes that we promised, in order to help first-time buyers, who were the worst-hit part of the homebuying sector in Labour’s great recession. However, in passing Lords amendments 8 and 9, the other place is seeking to stop us. This House should not stand for that. Those amendments would remove from the Bill the power to set a national starter homes requirement on housing sites. The other place has proposed to  replace that power with a locally set requirement that would be effective only when local authorities had completed studies of local housing need and viability.

Scott Mann: We hear a lot from local authorities about trying to secure rental properties, but we in this country have a right to own our own home and this Government are delivering that through this Bill. [Interruption.]

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, regardless of the comments from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). My hon. Friend highlights why the Bill is so important. We cannot and should not have to wait for 336 different planning authorities to undertake local need and viability assessments before action on starter homes can be taken. These amendments would hit the very people we are trying hardest to help. First-time buyers would see their chance of home ownership kicked firmly into the long grass yet again by these proposals. That might be what Labour wants, but it is not what we want.

Clive Betts: I am trying to understand what the Minister actually does want. I am trying to work out whether starter homes will be built in addition to other homes that would have been built, or instead of them. The Select Committee unanimously agreed the following words:
“Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure; where the need exists, it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs.”
Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill as he would like it to be worded would make starter homes the priority and effectively push out and displace affordable homes for rent as part of the section 106 agreements?

Brandon Lewis: I must point out to the Chairman of the Select Committee that we have been clear from the beginning that we need to see a shift in this country. We have had the farcical situation in which we in this place talk about affordable homes but refer only to homes that people can rent. We know that 86% of our population want to buy their own home, and it is therefore absolutely right that affordable homes should include those that are available to buy. We make no apologies for creating a new product and for turbocharging that new product to ensure that we get 200,000 such homes built over the course of this Parliament. We already have many hundreds of thousands of homes in the rental sector across this country, and we now need to give first-time buyers a chance. To be blunt, that is exactly what we put on the tin in the general election manifesto. We will deliver on our mandate to deliver starter homes.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I am just going to complete this point. We will deliver on the mandate to deliver 200,000 starter homes, ensuring that we deliver homes for first-time buyers at a discount of at least 20% on the local market price.
We have also recognised in discussions in the other place that small sites in rural areas, known as rural exception sites, may require additional discretion on starter homes. Those details should be on the face of  the Bill. We have listened to concerns that a compulsory requirement would disrupt the supply of rural exception sites. My noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford committed to bring back an amendment to give councils local discretion on rural exception sites. I am pleased to be able to honour that commitment in amendment (a) in lieu of amendments 9 and 10.
When I talk to developers and local authorities around sites around the country, they tell me that one benefit of starter homes is that more affordable housing may be delivered because developers will be allowed to deliver more. I have spoken to a number of developers who have said that the difference that starter homes would make is the ability to deliver 5% or even 10% more affordable housing in some developments in their areas.
There was a lot of discussion, both here and in the other place, about our plans to deliver the ground- breaking voluntary right-to-buy agreement through the sale of higher-value housing. It was another manifesto commitment passed from this House to the other place, and it is another change that we are discussing today. Amendments 37 and 184 would mean a considerable delay in receiving payments from local authorities, and therefore in delivering our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants. We remain convinced that the determination is the most appropriate way of setting out the information about the payment a local authority will be expected to make to the Secretary of State in respect of its higher-value housing. The key elements that will determine how much an authority will be expected to pay are set out on the face of the Bill. That includes the housing to be taken into account and the definition of vacancy.
The Government have listened carefully to the arguments made by hon. Members when the Bill was last debated and the contributions of all those in the other place. We have amended the Bill to ensure that local authorities are not disproportionately affected by the plans. The definition of higher value and the types of properties to be excluded will be set out in regulations and therefore subject to further parliamentary scrutiny.
I want to be clear with the House once again. In the other place, the Opposition were clear that they did not press the clauses enabling the voluntary right to buy to a vote and acknowledged our mandate for funding it. However, amendments 37 and 184 would seriously hamper our ability to implement it and so should be returned straightaway. The same applies to amendment 47, which is extremely restrictive and would prevent the Government from considering whether local authorities can actually deliver the required housing. We want to ensure that the Government can enter into agreements with local authorities about their local needs. By focusing solely on social housing, the amendment would prevent the agreement process from recognising that flexibility will be needed to respond to the country’s diverse housing needs—we have already heard from hon. Friends about the different needs in different places this afternoon—and that other types of housing may better meet local housing need.
I find it difficult to listen to those who accuse us of not being localist while tabling amendments that would mandate an old-fashioned, top-down approach. We want to ensure that we give local authorities with particular housing needs the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements on the delivery of different types of new homes.

Clive Betts: I am still as confused as I was at the beginning of the debate and at the Select Committee hearings. The Minister has just made an entirely reasonable point. I thoroughly agree that it should be for local authorities to determine the composition of homes to be built as part of section 106 agreements in their areas. How does that square with a policy of giving priority to starter homes and building 200,000 of them irrespective of the consequences for the building of other sorts of housing?

Brandon Lewis: I am actually talking about what will happen with the sale of higher-value properties, which is slightly different. We want to ensure that we give local authorities with particular housing needs the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas. If local authorities can demonstrate, for example, a clear need for new affordable homes, they should be able to make a case for such an agreement, subject to value-for-money considerations and evidence of a strong track record on housing delivery. That is important for areas that I have visited, such as Bath and Oxford. I met leaders in Cambridge and they want the flexibility to negotiate with Government and the Secretary of State to get the right deals for their area.

Victoria Borwick: I welcome the fact that there will be more flexibility on higher-value homes, particularly for outliers and where prices are particularly high or particularly low in an area. I am delighted that the Minister has taken cognisance of the needs of various people in various different areas so that local need is met.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of having this flexibility. In London, local authorities from across the parties have asked for the ability to work together to deliver on this front. We need new homes to be built in this country, and the amendment would limit the Government’s ability, and that of local authorities working with us, to ensure that the right mix of housing is delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Ben Howlett: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. As he will know from his visit to Bath a couple of weeks ago, we do not have high-value assets, but housing costs are high in the area. Given the earlier announcement about the shift from high-value assets to higher-value assets, which will not be applicable in Bath, how can our authority combine with other authorities to bid for additional funds following the Budget announcement?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When I visited him and met constituents, developers and the local authority, I saw a really good example of an area that wants to deliver the right type of housing locally by understanding its local needs. Whether that involves working with the Government to bid for some of the £4.7 billion in the shared ownership fund or the £1.2 billion for starter homes on brownfield sites—

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I will just answer the previous intervention before I take one from the right hon. Gentleman.
Local authorities could also work with authorities around the income from higher-value homes that they may be able to use to deliver elsewhere. It is important to get that flexibility and to understand that different authorities of different parties want it.
I now turn to amendments 54, 55, 57 and 58, all of which I disagree with. Amendment 54 would make our policy to implement fairer social rents voluntary. It is, as my noble Friend Baroness Williams said in the other place, a blatant denial of the primacy of this House. Local authorities can already operate the policy on a voluntary basis, but we are not aware that any have done so. To put it simply, it is a wrecking amendment and this House should treat it as such.
The policy must also apply consistently, as it would not be right for tenants in certain areas to face possible rent increases while tenants in a neighbouring area do not. The amendment completely undermines the Government’s aim of putting in place a consistent approach and of using the funds raised to reduce the national deficit, which we inherited from the Labour party. It would substantially reduce the revenue that the policy would generate.

Karen Buck: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I am happy to give way. Perhaps the hon. Lady is going to apologise for the debt and deficit that her party left.

Karen Buck: I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Westminster City Council, which, as usual, is in the vanguard of such things, announced in 2012 that it was extremely keen to introduce a version of pay to stay and to charge its higher-earning tenants additional rent. However, it has never done so because it has never found a way to introduce such a scheme that was not ridiculously bureaucratic and costly and that acted as a severe disincentive to work.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady will be interested to hear what I have to say in a few minutes about how the policy will work in practice to ensure not only consistency, but that it always pays to work.
We have brought forward a package of amendments and statements of intent to ensure that the policy is fair and that it does not damage the incentive to find work and keep in work. In addition, we have committed to allow local authorities to retain reasonable administration costs, and my officials are working with the sector to establish an approach to implementation that would minimise costs.
Amendment 55 would set the amount of the taper at 10% on the face of the Bill. Our view is that a 10% taper is simply too low. Our preference is for a taper set at 20% or an extra 20p in rent for every pound earned above the income threshold. That would mean, for example, that a household earning over the £31,000 threshold would contribute just a few pounds a week in additional rent. The level recognises the importance of protecting work incentives, but it is a fairer contribution. It is important that we retain the flexibility to set out the detail of the taper in secondary legislation. We want to keep the position under review, and putting details on the face of the Bill would prevent us from doing so. We have confirmed that the regulations will be subject  to the affirmative procedure, which I am sure will be welcomed by the House, so there will be another chance to debate the regulations before they come into force.
Amendment 57 would set higher income thresholds, which totally undermines the principle that social tenants on higher incomes should start to contribute a fairer level of rent once they earn more than £31,000—or £40,000 in London. We have listened to concerns about the policy and taken a number of steps as a result. There will be an automatic exemption for any household in receipt of housing benefit and universal credit. The definition of “household” will not include income from non-dependent children, such as an 18-year-old who is starting his first job. Certain state benefits such as tax credits, disability living allowance and personal independence payments will not count towards the calculation of income, and the income thresholds will be supported by a taper, which will ensure that households towards the start of the proposed income thresholds see their rent rise by only a few pounds each week.

Chloe Smith: I welcome the safeguards that my hon. Friend is setting out. Many Labour Members often argue that the rich should pay more, so is it not rather puzzling that in this case they seem to oppose that idea?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes an interesting point, and people reading Hansard will want to draw their own conclusions about what it means. We are clear: it is right that social tenants on higher incomes contribute more in rent where they can afford to do so, but we are also mindful that the policy should protect work incentives.

Meg Hillier: I take great offence at the suggestion that two people—two pensioners, for example—on a fixed income of £40,000 a year in my constituency would be considered rich, or that they would have any other housing option. Those of a certain age on a fixed income cannot rent privately because the rent would be more than £1,500, and a lot more for a two-bedroom flat. They cannot buy, because the average property price is £682,000, and they would not qualify for a starter home, even if they wanted something of that size. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is invidious to attack those people who do not have a great deal of money?

Brandon Lewis: I do not think that that recognises the policy at all. The policy means that as people earn more, they will pay a few pounds a week more. I do not think that is unreasonable, and it ensures that we make the best possible use of our social housing stock.

Lyn Brown: It is difficult to know where to start. The Minister talks about people paying an extra few pounds more, but that is nonsense. This is a tax on aspiration, and the idea that a family in London that earns £40,000 a year is rich is baloney. It costs an awful lot to live in this wonderful capital city of ours—something that the Minister is failing to grasp.

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Lady reads the Bill and the amendment, she will appreciate that we do not suggest that people over that income should not stay in  their home, or that they should move to private rented accommodation; we are saying that as people earn more money, they should contribute a little more into the system. That is reasonable, and it ensures that we make the best use of those properties for the people who need them most. The package we have announced ensures a policy that protects work incentives. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 57, or amendment 58, which raises the income thresholds by the consumer prices index, and I hope that the House will agree.

Clive Betts: The Communities and Local Government Committee took evidence from housing associations when the Government were planning to introduce this scheme for them, and we heard clear evidence that it would cost them more to administer the scheme than they would get in returns from extra rent. Will the Government present a clear analysis of the administration costs of this scheme, particularly for people on variable incomes whose income, and therefore rent, goes up and down each week? We would need enormous amounts of administration to go with this scheme.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This is about fairness across the system. People in London—and cities in other parts of the country—who are in the private rented sector and earn these salaries, or higher and lower, are wondering about those in housing associations who earn more than £40,000. Examples have already been given in the House of Secretaries of State on salaries of £125,000, or union leaders on salaries of more than £100,000, who lived in social rented housing. Tens of thousands of people are earning more than £40,000 or £50,000 a year and are benefiting from social rents that are simply not fair to those who do not have those salaries or opportunities.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what the reality of social housing for rent in London and beyond is for people who are homeless to start with? There is a huge queue of people waiting for a socially rented property, and it is totally unacceptable for people who are on relatively high salaries to occupy those properties when there is such huge demand.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend places in keen focus one of the problems of the housing deficit that the Government inherited in 2010. Under the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), not only did we see the lowest level of housebuilding since about 1923, but in 13 years the Labour party built fewer social homes through their councils than we have built in the past four or five years. There is a huge amount to do to drive up the amount of housing so that there are more opportunities for people to have homes across all tenures, whether shared ownership, private rental or with affordable rent. We must ensure that more people have the chance to get on and achieve the aspiration held by 86% of the public, which is to buy a home of their own.
The House will be glad to hear that I will not speak to every Government amendment—you might also be pleased about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many of those amendments are minor and technical, and much as we might all enjoy it if I spoke to them all, some colleagues would not thank me because we might still be here by Prorogation. Each amendment makes the Bill work  better for those who implement these policies on the ground, and they have been tabled because the Government have listened to the debate and taken action as a result. We have strengthened people’s ability to own their own home and get Britain building again—improving on the 25% increase in building over the last year—and I hope that the House will agree to those changes made in the other place.
I also want to send a strong message that this Government will not slow the pace of housebuilding—we will increase it. We will not take away people’s dream of home ownership—we will inspire it, and we will deliver our manifesto commitments. When the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) responds to this debate, I hope that Labour Members will ask themselves why they stand against our mandate to boost home ownership and supply—something that the people of this country want and expect. While Labour blusters with political posturing after the abysmal housing mess that it left, we remain focused on building homes across our country and across all tenures. We will increase housing supply and home ownership. That is what we promised, and that is what we will deliver.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank their lordships for their amazing work on this Bill. Thirteen defeats and a string of concessions means that some of the sharpest edges have been knocked off a very bad Bill, but it remains an extraordinary and extreme piece of proposed legislation. Concern is being voiced by housing experts, charities, house builders, mortgage lenders, and Conservatives across a range of council leaders, MPs and peers. Doubts about the Bill matter, but even more important are the deeper doubts—on all fronts and with good reason—about whether the Conservative party is competent to fix our housing crisis.
Since 2010, home ownership has fallen, homelessness and rough sleeping has doubled, private rents have soared, housing benefit costs have ballooned, and during the last Parliament, fewer new homes were built than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. This Bill does little to tackle the overall housing shortage or produce more housing across all tenures, including housing to rent as well as buy. With the exception of provisions on rogue landlords, it does nothing to improve the private rented sector on which so many people now rely.

James Cartlidge: When the hon. Lady talks about the affordability crisis, does she think that any part was played in that by the 200% increase in house prices between 1997 and 2008, as a result of a woefully badly regulated mortgage sector?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Labour produced more than 1 million more homeowners during our time in government. This Bill shows that the current Government have no long-term housing plan for the country.

Scott Mann: Does the hon. Lady accept that the reason private rents are increasingly high is that we have not built enough homes?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Absolutely. The question is: will this Bill deliver the homes? We do not think it will.
Faced with this bad Bill, a ridiculous timetable and long sittings, the other place has not only done an excellent job scrutinising the Bill, but improved it to make it slightly more palatable. If only the Government had had the grace to accept changes on starter homes, pay to stay and the forced sale of council housing that they are resisting today, it could have been improved further.
I want to deal first with the amendments the Government are voting against. On Lords amendment 1, we do agree with the principle of the Lord Best amendment and think it is important that if starter homes are resold within a given period, a paying back of discount should occur. We accept that the Government have brought forward a compromise which appears to do this to a degree, although we would still have a preference for the discount to remain in perpetuity, as this is a better use of scarce public resources.
Lords amendment 9, tabled by Lords Beecham, Kerslake and Kennedy, quite reasonably asks that:
“() An English planning authority may only grant planning permission for a residential development having had regard to the provision of starter homes based on its own assessment of local housing need and viability.”
The Minister will know that one of the greatest of the many concerns about the starter homes initiative is that such homes will be imposed, with specified numbers required by central diktat from government, regardless of whether they are needed in the quantities demanded. This amendment is a very localist one, seeking to give a role to local authorities in assessing the need for starter homes and their impact on the viability of local development.

Jake Berry: The hon. Lady says she is concerned about the Government dictating the number of starter homes that will be built in an area. Can she name any area in this country where she believes homes sold at a 20% discount are not needed by first-time buyers?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but the point I am making is that we will need not only starter homes, but other types of homes, particularly those for social rent. That is why the numbers should be subject to local determination and not central diktat.
To everyone except the Government, it appears eminently sensible that the need for starter homes should be assessed locally and then delivered, rather than ordered from on high, most likely to the exclusion of genuinely affordable housing for rent or equity share. This amendment is not a block on starter homes, but a requirement that they are part of a local housing mix.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady needs to concede that Conservative Members have suspicions that her opposition to starter homes is ideological. Leaving that aside, she would be in a much stronger position were she to concede that a significant number of local planning authorities have not brought forward local district plans or county structure plans in a timely and appropriate fashion, and so the Government are forced to take action to tackle the housing crisis to which she refers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: But surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that the way of dealing with that is through the local plan-making system. Indeed, one of the amendments we might deal with later in our discussions this evening relates to the requirement that is finally being placed on local government by this Government to produce a local plan.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making an important point about localism. Do we not also need the local authority to determine what is truly affordable for its local housing market? I note that the Minister was not so forthcoming about his definition of “affordability”. He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that these homes in central London would not be sold at £450,000. What then is the point of a cap at £450,000—why not £150,000?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it shows why a local test of the need for starter homes is so important.
As I was saying, Lords amendment 9 is not a block on starter homes but a requirement that they are part of a local housing mix. For that reason we shall be supporting the Lords in this amendment. We also find it odd that the Government want to replace Lords amendments 9 and 10 with one on rural exception sites. We support the Government having a policy on rural exception sites, but not at the cost of the exclusion of Lords amendments 9 and 10.
The sale of higher value council housing is one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill. We do not agree that the sale of higher value council housing should be used to fund the right to buy for housing association tenants. Lords amendment 37, tabled by Lords Kennedy, Lisvane and Kerslake, is very straightforward, requiring a setting out of the details of the calculation and payments to be made by local authorities and for them to be put in statutory instruments and subject to affirmative procedure in Parliament. All this amendment seeks is that information is put before Parliament, so that we know exactly what is being demanded from this additional tax on local authorities and so that we get an opportunity to vote on it in this House.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My local authority is set to have to sell 700 homes over the next few years. It is building homes as fast as it can for people to buy and it is certainly not against starter homes, but in London this is a pipe dream for many. Does she not agree that we need to get the Government to address particular issues in high-cost areas such as mine that are forcing everybody out of ownership and out of having any realistic prospect of living there, even if they are on a pretty good income?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I shall come on to deal with that issue when discussing a later amendment.
Why do the Government not want to provide the information I referred to and to have this scrutiny? The lack of information on this policy is an issue that has  been taken up by the Public Accounts Committee, too. The Minister will be aware that it said:
“It is not clear how this policy will be funded in practice, or what its financial impacts might be. The Department’s intention is for this policy to be fully funded by local authorities, but it was unable to provide any figures to demonstrate that this would be the case…More widely, an even bigger risk will fall on those local authorities required to sell housing stock to fund the policy, as those assets will in effect be transferred to central government. But the Department did not appear to have a good understanding of the size of these risks”.
The Committee went on to say:
“The commitment to replace homes sold under this policy on at least a one-for-one basis will not ensure that these will be like-for-like replacements as regards size, location or tenure. Experience of the reinvigorated Right to Buy for council tenants, introduced in 2012, shows that meeting such one-for-one replacement targets can be difficult…Moreover, replacement homes can be in different areas, be a different size, and cost more to rent. Neither do they need to be new homes”.

Clive Betts: The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the sale of the “higher-value council properties”, as this has now become, will pay for the replacement of the right-to-buy property sold by a housing association and this £1 billion remedial brownfield fund. The fact that he has said that with such assurance must imply that he has some figures and some workings out somewhere on which he has based those assertions. Would it not be helpful if he could produce those today?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If the Minister has those figures, we will give him an opportunity now to share them with us, as that would be extremely helpful in allowing us to know exactly what we are going to be voting on this evening.
Although more information is important, we need to remind ourselves that the whole policy of selling off higher value council housing to fund the right to buy is considered by almost everyone to be a very bad thing to do, and that replacement is absolutely essential.
Lords amendment 47, tabled by Lords Beecham, Kerslake and Kennedy, addresses the issue of replacement, and would require the Government to enter into an agreement with a local authority under clause 72 whereby a local authority could show the need for a type of social housing and the Secretary of State would then agree a hold-back sum, so that homes sold could be replaced by houses of the same tenure, type and rent. If the Government do not accept this one-for-one, like-for-like replacement, they need to explain why. The reason this amendment is so important is that few details are in the public domain about how the Government will meet their own commitment for one-for-one or two-for-one replacement in London.
It appears that Ministers could force the sale of a council house in Camden and count two other new homes built for open market sale in Croydon as meeting the so-called commitment to replace. Therefore, the like-for-like replacement in amendment 47 is vital to ensure that housing need is met across the range and that homes for social rent are not simply replaced by starter homes or homes at higher rents, which, as the Public Accounts Committee outlined in its statement, is a real risk.
Furthermore, figures from Shelter this morning outline a truly alarming picture of the impact of the sale of higher value council homes on local authority stock, and I will come on to that in a moment or two.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that this also punishes good councils that try to build social homes?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Indeed, but I suspect that that is part of the Government’s rationale.
Labour will be supporting the Lords in their amendment 47.

Dawn Butler: The Minister was talking about amendment 47. The important principle of the Khan amendment is that if a council sells social housing, it should replace it in the same area. On starter homes, it would be really great if the Minister could confirm that starter homes in my Brent constituency will be no more than £190,000, because that would change the whole tone of this debate.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend has asked the Minister to make that confirmation, but I doubt that he will take her up on that offer.
Let me move on to pay to stay, another pernicious bit of the Bill. As we all know, that is a tax on tenants and a tax on aspiration and will lead to many people having to leave their homes or increase their levels of personal indebtedness. The Minister should have talked to the group of tenants from Hackney whom I met a few weeks ago. They are not high-income families. How could anyone describe as high a household income of £17,000 and £23,000 inside London; or £12,000 and £18,000 outside London?

Karen Buck: Can my hon. Friend help me understand how Government Members are simultaneously arguing that a household income of £40,000 in London is rich when it comes to social rent, but that a household income of £77,000 is poor when it comes to getting a 20% discount on starter homes?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I look forward to the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend’s question.
Such people, however, will be faced with a situation in which even a modest rise in income will result in a significant hike in rent. We spoke to a couple with a combined income of just over £40,000—one was a part- time cleaner and the other a sales associate. They want their children to go to university and just do not know how they will manage that in London if their rent moves towards a market one which, in their area, would represent an increase of 400%.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does the hon. Lady agree with the principle of means-testing tenants in properties that are set aside for people on lower incomes? I am talking about social rented properties.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: As the hon. Gentleman sat on the Bill Committee, he should know that a voluntary scheme is already in place for local authorities and housing associations to do that very thing.
The tenants also object to their housing being seen as subsidised. In response to a written question, Baroness Williams said:
“Local housing authorities do not receive subsidy from the Exchequer; the Localism Act 2011 abolished Housing Revenue Account Subsidy.”
This housing is not subsidised, and in any case it is there to meet needs. It is outrageous that the Government are taxing tenants in such a way while claiming to stand up for hard-working people.

Chloe Smith: I am deeply worried that the hon. Lady cannot seem to agree with those housing charity chief executives who, in the Bill Committee’s evidence sessions, did accept the principle that social housing should go to those most in need. Considering that she based her argument on Lords amendment 1 around scarce public resources, I do not understand her position, so perhaps she could clarify it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: In the main, council housing in this country is allocated on the basis of need.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Lady agree that the hard-working families who we see in our surgeries—I certainly see them in my surgery and I am sure that she sees them in hers—will get nothing from this measure? The single mum who is earning £17,000 and wants to get out of her dreadful private rented accommodation, which literally has rodents running around on the floor, will get nothing out of this, will she?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point; that person will get absolutely nothing.

Chloe Smith: rose—

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Lords amendment 54 would limit the damage of pay to stay by making it voluntary for local authorities, with authorities treated in the same way as housing associations. I do not understand why the Minister wants to treat council tenants differently. All the amendment asks is that council tenants are treated in exactly the same way as housing association tenants so, again, Labour will support the Lords amendment.

Jake Berry: Let me bring the hon. Lady back to her earlier comment about social housing being allocated according to need. The average salary in my constituency is £20,000 and there are more than 1,000 people on the housing waiting list. Does she accept that people on the average salary of £20,000 will feel aggrieved that they cannot get a social home if it is being occupied by a person who is earning £30,000, meaning that they are effectively paying tax to subsidise that person who is earning significantly more than them?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I do not accept most of what the hon. Gentleman says. What we must do is build lots more council houses in this country.
Lords amendment 55 would introduce a taper of 10p in every pound of a social tenant’s income above the minimum income threshold. This sensible measure would  ensure that tenants would not face the cliff edge of a small rise in income leading to a huge rent increase. We know—the Minister confirmed this earlier—that the Government are planning a higher taper. I am pleased that he will keep the taper and the level at which it is set under review, and that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will need to look at that very closely indeed.

Michelle Donelan: I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). Will she remind the House of the average earnings of a person in the UK, and then tell us whether social housing is for everyone or for those in genuine need, as there does seem to be a bit of confusion?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: As the hon. Lady knows, many people in this country and, I am sure, in her constituency, are on council waiting lists. What we should be thinking about is how to build more council houses to meet that need.
Lords amendment 57 would increase the thresholds for pay to stay to £50,000 in London and £40,000 outside London in order to limit the damage that this dreadful policy will cause. Similarly, Lords amendment 58 would ensure that income thresholds would increase in line with the consumer prices index, not at the whim of the Secretary of State. We note that the Government will vote against those amendments, but we could do with more explanation of the basis on which they will increase the thresholds.
There are too many Government Lords amendments to comment on, given the time available, although that again demonstrates a problem with this Bill. I will highlight a few of the other amendments in the group, however. We are pleased that the Government adopted Lords amendments 26 to 36, which were tabled by Lord Kennedy and Baroness Grender. The amendments will enable information to be given to third parties when the recovery of abandoned premises is sought and provide a definition of a “tenancy deposit”. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and colleagues in the Lords worked hard to ensure that such measures were included in the Bill.
Government Lords amendments 38 to 43 replace the requirement for local authorities to sell off vacant high-value council housing with a requirement to sell off “higher value” vacant council housing. If selling off high-value housing was bad, selling off higher-value housing is much, much worse. Although the approach might help London a little, it will lead to more sell-offs in other areas. As the Public Accounts Committee noted, there is not enough information available on the impact of the policy or its scope to allow Parliament to vote sensibly on it. Shelter’s analysis found that to raise the £4.5 billion a year needed, each local authority could be asked to raise on average a massive £26 million. That corresponds to the sale of 23,503 council homes a year, which is six times more than it was estimated would be sold under the previous high-value regime.
Government Lords amendment 56 supports the exemption of some categories of persons—as yet unknown —from pay to stay provisions. Labour Members argued strongly for such a measure in Public Bill Committee. The amendment states that
“regulations may create exceptions for high income tenants of social housing of a specified description.”
Do such tenants include people aged over 65, people with a registered disability, people with seasonal contracts of employment, or people who have a household member in receipt of care? We have no idea what the Minister intends, and that is not satisfactory.
Government Lords amendments 215, 217 to 221 and 233 amend proposals on ending security of tenure. Although we recognise that allowing 10-year tenancies, and longer tenancies if there is a child in the home, is a step forward, we still think that the whole policy is dreadful. Many people are commenting that what is really important about social housing, and council housing in particular, is that it provides security of tenure, and enables communities to be stable and to thrive. One can only wonder what will happen to parents when their children reach the age of 19, and what will happen if a young person wants to live at home beyond that age. The policy fails to acknowledge that we are talking about people’s homes. The Government should bring forward proposals to extend security of tenure in the private rented sector, rather than reducing that security for council housing tenants, with all the social upheaval and personal anxiety that that brings with it.
Lords amendments 90 and 91 deal with electrical safety checks. I am pleased that the Government were forced by the action that we took in the Commons, and by their lordships, to adopt the amendments, which would put a duty on private landlords to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that checks are carried out at a reasonable frequency and by people with the proper expertise. We should thank Baroness Hayter and others for tabling those amendments and arguing for them in the Lords.
Finally, I am pleased that their lordships have insisted that the regulations that we are still to receive—there are many—that will set out much of the detail of the Bill must, in the main, be subject to the affirmative procedure. This includes measures on banning order offences, and determinations and regulations relating to vacant higher-value housing, high-income social tenants, electrical safety, client money protection and planning freedoms. I thank the Lords for ensuring that the Government’s nasty habit of putting through important regulations under the negative procedure ceases.
As the whole housing world has acknowledged, the Bill does little to solve our housing crisis, yet will make things a whole lot worse for the supply of genuinely affordable housing. According to Inside Housing, the Bill has been producing headaches for the Prime Minister, but I am sure he will be pleased to know that he will not need a junior doctor to cure his headaches—all he needs to do is to drop this dreadful Bill.

Seema Kennedy: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am pleased to support the Bill. The passions raised in Committee and now in the Chamber are testament to the fact that we know that we need to build more homes. Many of our constituents want to get on the housing ladder and the Bill does great service for that cause. There is no doubt that house building took a hit following the recession that began in 2008, but I am pleased to note that as our Committee stage was winding  up in December last year, housing building completions were at their highest level since 2008, with 143,000 completions in that calendar year. That is to be applauded, but there is still much more work to be done to fulfil the aspirations of the 86% of our fellow Britons who want to own their own home.
Starter homes are an essential part of that offering, to allow young people to own their homes, rather than renting for years on end or perhaps for ever.

Meg Hillier: Most of us on the Opposition Benches would agree that a starter home for a young family is a great thing. Does the hon. Lady not regret that over the past eight years, under a Conservative Mayor of London, we have seen a lot of housing built, but it is for private sale at inflated prices—luxury homes sold to overseas developers, and in no way within reach of local people in my constituency or across London?

Seema Kennedy: I have great respect for the hon. Lady and the work she does on her Committee, but, with great respect to the Opposition, this is not a debate just about London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) pointed out. Much of the debate in Committee and the Chamber has been about London. There are affordable houses, and I know that in London there are many. However, there are 590 MPs who represent areas outside London.

Stewart Jackson: It was a great pleasure to serve with my hon. Friend on the Bill Committee. She touches on an interesting point. Does she agree that none of our witnesses was able definitively to demonstrate that, leaving aside London and most of the south-east, starter homes with the right vehicle, such as Help to Buy, would be unaffordable? For the vast bulk of England, they were affordable.

Seema Kennedy: Indeed. Those happy days in November and December that we all spent together in Committee were an unalloyed joy. With the right vehicle, such as the Help to Buy ISA, and with shared ownership, starter homes are affordable in many areas, including developments that I have visited in my constituency of South Ribble. For the generation between 20 and 40, which has been disproportionately affected by the increase in house prices, starter homes are a way to get on the property ladder, and we should all welcome the commitment to build these 200,000 homes.

Dawn Butler: I am a London MP. It might be difficult for Members who are not London MPs to understand how difficult and how unaffordable it is to live in London, but that is why London MPs make the points they do. It may be of interest that Londoners will be voting on Thursday in what is almost a referendum on the housing crisis in London.

Seema Kennedy: I will let other London MPs respond more fully on the particular London issues.

Jake Berry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Seema Kennedy: I will make a little progress—otherwise, I will be up and down like a fiddler’s elbow.
Let me turn quickly to amendment 1. A 20% discount over 20 years does not really take account of the practicalities of people’s lives—20 years is far too long. We are talking about starter homes, so one would hope that people are not going to live in them for 20 years. As the Minister said, the average time people live in a house is seven years, not 20. The amendment places restrictions on starter home owners, who are precisely the generation—those aged 20 to 40—whom the Bill aims to empower. I am glad the Government are consulting on the duration of the discount and the taper. If we want builders to build and lenders to lend, we need to take a practical, not an ideological, approach—the policy has to work.
Lords amendments 9 and 10 would replace the national requirement with a requirement that is set locally, depending on local housing needs and viability assessments. That completely undermines our manifesto commitment to build these 200,000 homes, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, that policy is very popular. Constituents come to us saying, “I want to get a starter home. How can I get my foot on the ladder?” If we were to remove the national requirement, I fear we would delay the process.

Andrew Gwynne: Earlier the hon. Lady actually made the case for a more localist approach. She said she was not a London Member and that circumstances in her constituency were very different from those in the capital. Surely, if there are different circumstances in different parts of the country, we need a local approach.

Seema Kennedy: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but the Lords amendments would hold the process up; we would get to 2019, and no starter homes would have been built—I really fear that that would happen. The amendments would slow things down, but we need to start building now.
As we know, house prices have risen exponentially, particularly in London, but that is because of a lack of supply. The picture is complicated, and one could not say that things have happened for one particular reason, but the lack of supply is a fundamental block, and we touched on that all the way through Committee. We need to get more houses built—and quickly.
There was much debate in Committee about permission in principle—the new consent model of planning—which will provide certainty.

Marie Rimmer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Kennedy: I am afraid I am going to make a little more progress.
Developers and builders want certainty and speed. One brake on development is the lack of certainty and the slowness of certain planning departments. The whole essence of the Bill is to get the country building homes—to increase the supply and to make more people home owners.
This measure is particularly effective for small builders, who do not have the scale to have in-house planning departments. Measures to encourage those who might build 10 or 20 homes in a village are particularly effective.

Rebecca Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the small builders who actually get on and build, whereas the large developers are often slow at delivering projects? Anything we do to support small builders on small sites will improve the housing supply.

Seema Kennedy: I agree. Given how small builders are funded and run, they are not land banking in the same way. They want to build homes and move on, whereas the large multiples have a different approach because they are land investors as well as builders. I think there is very much a cross-party consensus that we need more units built. That is the whole essence of the Bill.
I welcome the Lords amendments that exclude the winning and working of minerals, which covers fracking. In areas such as South Ribble and the Bowland basin, where companies have made initial exploratory attempts, that will give reassurance to some of my constituents.
We need to build more homes. The Bill will provide some hope and, hopefully, some homes for the many of our constituents who aspire to own a home of their own.

Clive Betts: The most astounding thing about the Government’s proposals is that we are expected to make decisions about them today without any idea of the costings. When the Minister came to the Communities and Local Government Committee, he said the Government would produce costings in due course—I think he actually said spring was the likely time. Well, here we are in the spring, and I have not seen any figures.
It is astounding that we should hear from the Government over and over again that the sale of a, now, higher-value council home will pay for the replacement of that home, the replacement of a housing association property that is sold and the £1 billion fund for remedial work on brownfield land. If the Government are clear that that is what their policies will do, will they please show us the figures? If they are clear that that is what will happen, they must have the figures to have made their promises on. Or are they simply telling us they believe that that is how things will work out, but without any clear evidence to support that?
That is a matter of great concern. It was a concern to the Select Committee, which, having heard the evidence, correctly said:
“We have not seen evidence that the Government has fully costed the proposals and we call on it to do so as a matter of urgency.”
That was agreed at the beginning of February; we are now three months further on, but we still have no figures. The Public Accounts Committee made exactly the same point in its report, and it seemed a very reasonable point, regardless of whether we think the PAC should look at policy before or after it is implemented. The Committee said:
“The Department should publish a full impact assessment containing analysis in line with the guidance on policy appraisal in HM Treasury’s Green Book, to accompany the proposed secondary legislation”.
When will we see the figures? We have not got them for the Bill. Will we have them before any secondary legislation comes before the House for approval? Will the Minister make a firm promise that that will be the case?  He referred to further secondary legislation on higher-value council homes. Will these proposals be thoroughly and properly costed before we reach that point? This is a serious matter—the right of the House to have information before it passes legislation.
Let me come now to starter homes. Again, it has been a little hard to understand how the Government’s policy will work. When the Minister came before the Communities and Local Government Committee, he said that local authorities meeting developers to discuss section 106 agreements would have discretion over what mix of affordable housing would be built. Can we have some clarity on that? Will starter homes take absolute priority, with local authorities having no choice but to build them to hit the Government’s 200,000 target, and if there is a bit of money left, perhaps putting one or two affordable homes for rent on the site? Or will local authorities, as they are currently allowed to, come to their own view about section 106 agreements and about the right mix of affordable homes on the site, whether that means starter homes—now defined as affordable homes—homes to rent or shared ownership? What is actually going to be the case?
What about areas of land in my constituency where there is no requirement for any affordable housing at present because the sites are not considered to be viable, yet viability is an important test under the national planning policy framework guidelines that local authorities have to work to? Will the Government insist that starter homes are built on a site where it is not currently considered viable to have any section 106 provision for affordable housing? How is that going to work—or will there be local discretion in that regard as well? We need some clarity.
We also need clarity about the replacement of the higher-value council homes as to precisely what sort of homes they will be replaced with, how that will be defined, and what the negotiation process between Government and local authorities will look like. Will it be a case of starter homes at all costs, or are we going to be in a position where affordable homes to rent can be part of the replacement situation, going back to “like-for-like”?
The Chartered Institute of Housing produced evidence to the Select Committee in which it estimated that during the course of this Parliament there would be 300,000 fewer social homes to rent than there were at the beginning. The Minister likes to take credit for the previous coalition Government having built more council homes than were built under the Labour Government, but let us get to the point: during this Parliament, will there be 300,000 fewer social homes to rent, not just council homes but housing association properties, as the Chartered Institute of Housing has estimated? The Government disagree with that figure, but will they say what they expect their policies to produce by the end of this Parliament?

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Betts: Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman will remember the clear evidence given by David Orr of the National Housing Federation, who said that because of these proposals housing associations will be building more properties of all tenures.

Clive Betts: We had evidence from various housing associations about how they were going to respond to the proposals. Some made it very clear that they felt they would gain fewer properties to rent under section 106 agreements than under the previous legislative arrangements. They also made it clear that given that there is now no money in the Government’s housing programme for the rest of this Parliament for any houses to rent, in terms of grant assistance, all the resources—the £8 billion—will go either to starter homes or to shared ownership. Many associations believe that they will be building fewer homes to rent on an affordable basis because of the combined effects of policy as a whole. That will vary from association to association.
Tony Stacey, the chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told us that in much of the area where his association works it would not be possible to build back with the money that will be given from the sale of housing association property, and it was likely that the association would simply go and buy up another property in the private rented sector. That could happen as well, and it would not act on the housing stock. There will be very different policies in different areas. I would argue strongly, in relation to starter homes, that we should reflect that by enabling local authorities to come to different agreements that suit their local needs. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the Select Committee said very clearly:
“Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure…it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs.”

Jim McMahon: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that research commissioned by the Local Government Association highlights the fact that in 220 local authority areas, people who are in need of affordable housing will not be able to take advantage of the starter homes that are being proposed?

Clive Betts: Yes. It is interesting that my hon. Friend mentions the LGA, which argued very strongly, on a cross-party basis, that the policy of the right to buy for housing association tenants should not be funded by the sale of local authority assets. I will make sure that I get the Committee’s words right in quoting them to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. We said that
“public policy should usually be funded by central Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities.”
As usual, perhaps the Government ought to listen to the words of the Select Committee. The whole issue of the right to buy for housing association tenants would not be a significant point of contention if the Government were not forcing the sale of local authority homes to pay for it—and we still have not had the figures to show how that would work. With regard to sorting out more flexibility on starter homes, I still do not know what their policy amounts to because of the lack of clarity that we have had.
Finally, I want to raise two really worrying issues where the Select Committee did not come to a view—lifetime tenancies and pay to stay. We welcome the fact that pay to stay will be voluntary for housing associations. However, the situation will be a bit strange in a street where two tenants are earning the same amount of money and paying similar rents, one in a housing association  property and one in a council property, and one finds their rent going up and the other does not. Let us get away from the talk about subsidised council housing. There is no central Government subsidy to housing revenue accounts, so there is no subsidy to council tenants earning a little more than their neighbours next door, but what there will be, if this measure goes through, is a tax on those tenants, because the money will go not to the council but to the Treasury, and the Treasury levying a charge on a council tenant is a tax by any other name—of course it is.
Let us put that together with the lifetime tenancy issue. Are we really going to end up with council estates where some homes will have been sold, but in different proportions in different areas, some of which will then have been sold on into the private rented sector, so that we have an increasing mixture of people on the lowest incomes and people there on only a short-term basis? By forcing their rents up, we will push out people on slightly higher incomes who may have a long-term commitment to the area and roots in the area. They may be the people who run the local housing association, the local residents group or the local community forums, and are really active there. Of course, the very same people will be the longer-term tenants who have a real interest in and long-term commitment to their area. What does this policy, and this mixture of policies, do for social cohesion? It undermines the whole idea of a long-term commitment by people who are rooted in their areas and want to stay there because they enjoy living there, they have connections there, their kids go to school there, and that is where their home is.

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that brilliant point. Does he agree with some commentators that this Bill—this sounds very dramatic but it is very serious—marks the end of mixed communities in a number of London boroughs?

Clive Betts: Potentially it does, because driving out all the people on slightly higher incomes and removing people who are potentially longer-term tenants creates a very different sort of community. We have to be very careful about that.

Chris Philp: While I have sympathy with some of the points the hon. Gentleman is making, does he not accept the principle that with regard to a scarce social resource like social housing, it is simply common sense to make sure that that scarce resource is targeted at those who are most in need, as this Bill seeks to do?

Clive Betts: I would argue this: let us tackle the scarcity. Let us start a building programme of 100,000 social homes a year. That is the only way that we will hit the target of the quarter of a million homes this country will need. We have never built a quarter of a million homes without a massive social house building programme, and it is unlikely we will do so in future.
I will make one more point about the mix of communities. In other communities where there is, at the very beginning, a limited number of social rented properties, the right to buy that has already happened, together with the proposed extension of the right to buy, will mean that those are exactly the same communities that have the higher-value council homes. Not only will  the right to buy remove social housing in those areas, but the sale of vacant higher-value council properties will remove social housing as well. It is likely that, in future, some communities will have no social housing to rent whatsoever, irrespective of people’s needs. That is the other conclusion, and it is very worrying indeed. In some communities, there will be no home available for those on low earnings or short-term tenancies who have a real housing need but who cannot afford to buy. That is another product of the Bill and I am against it. I hope that Members will support the Lords amendments to at least mitigate its worst impacts.

Scott Mann: The House will probably be aware that I am passionate about home ownership and about helping people on modest incomes to be able to afford to buy their first home. In fact, such is the interest that I have taken in housing that I am referred to as a housing spokesman by my Cornish Conservative colleagues, and for that I am thankful.
For more than a quarter of a century, housing policy has failed the people of Cornwall. Thanks to this Government, we now have a number of approaches that will change that, including the introduction of starter homes, Help to Buy, the newly announced £19 million self-build project for the south-west, and continuing discussions with lenders about affordability. We now finally have a number of policies in place that will help the Cornish working population own their own home.
Many colleagues across the House will know the amazing feeling when you buy your first home—the sense of pride and achievement when you get the keys to the front door. It is one of those first big steps in life, like being accepted to university, getting married or having your first child.
When the Bill first appeared in this House back in October, the Government had clear goals to build more homes for a growing population and to reform the planning process. That included 400,000 new homes by 2020; 200,000 starter homes; the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants, turning generation rent into generation buy; and speeding up the planning process.
Since then, I have had many conversations with councillors in Cornwall who have been concerned about certain aspects of the Bill, including the right-to-buy policy and making councils sell off their high-value council houses. That policy could result in coastal communities in Cornwall losing very important social housing stocks, unless like-for-like replacements are built. I therefore welcome amendments 42A, 44A and 44B to clause 2, which were tabled in the other place by Baroness Williams and which allow some flexibility to the under-40 cap for purchasing a starter home. Some people over 40 are still looking to buy their first home—many of them in Cornwall—and certain exemptions will benefit couples where both are over 40 and have a right to buy their first home.
To give those starter homes some security, the Government’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 to clause 2 will introduce a minimum age of 23 to buy a starter home, which is a good policy. It will prevent abuse of the system by those who would try to buy a starter home with a 20% discount by using a young person or a student who otherwise would not intend to buy one.
Turning to part 4 of the Bill, I want to address amendments relating to high-value local authority housing. The initial announcement that councils would be made to sell off such housing caused concern in Cornwall, because the county has a high level of coastal communities where properties have, through no fault of their own, increased significantly in value in recent years. The selling off of high-value council assets would have resulted in a reduction in the number of homes available to people on low or modest incomes, and would likely have increased second-home ownership. That would have been bad not only for local families, but for local communities, as families would have moved to urban areas, thereby bringing about a decrease in local trade.
The Government’s Lords amendment 53 replaces the term “high value” with the term “higher value”, which will introduce a much more local approach, as housing prices differ from area to area. A council house worth £400,000 may have been deemed worthy of selling off, given that that figure is very high compared with that for a council house in an inland urban area. Without protection, communities could suffer.
Local people in coastal communities should not be restricted from access because of where they grew up. I am therefore very pleased that the Secretary of State and Baroness Williams acknowledged concerns about the issue and made changes accordingly to give more freedom to local authorities over how they classify their higher value council homes.
I will not address other amendments now, because I want fellow Members to have the opportunity to speak. Suffice to say that the amendments I have touched on strengthen the Bill; illustrate the Government’s commitment to addressing the housing and planning challenges of the modern age; and ensure that rural communities are better protected while we drive towards more affordable homes throughout the country.

Karen Buck: I make no apologies for returning to the issue of London, because that is where housing need is sharpest and where the affordability crisis is most severe.
I find myself in the rare position, for one night only, of being in some harmony with Westminster City Council—a rare thing indeed. Its policy and scrutiny committee’s report on the Bill is deeply fascinating. It makes it clear—in moderate tones, but its content is unmistakable—what it thinks about the Bill and how it will impact on housing supply. Following on from a point made by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, it says:
“The Bill is largely a framework”,
which I think is a euphemism for, “We have no idea how most of it is going to work.” That point of view was spelled out more sharply by the Public Accounts Committee—whose Chair is not in her place at the moment—which absolutely stripped away the pretence of the calculations on which high-value sales have been predicated. Westminster City Council itself, however, is clear that the Bill will have a severe impact on housing and that it will also have wider implications, which I will address in a moment.
We do not know what the redefinition of sales from “high value” to “higher value” will mean for local areas. When Shelter did its initial calculation, it found that Westminster was likely to have to sell off 76.3% of its council properties as they became vacant. That would  mean a sale rate of 246 a year. We do not know—as we keep saying about this Bill—what the new calculation will mean. The Minister has offered no calculations. The council’s latest estimate, however, is that it will need to sell 200 high-value voids a year in order to fund the right-to-buy housing association properties and that that will be worth £100 million year.
Here is the rub: not only will that reduce the stock and have massive implications for meeting housing needs, but it will simply displace costs into other areas of public expenditure. Westminster City Council has said that that will result in additional costs of £1.5 million a year for temporary accommodation for homeless families. The local taxpayer already has to fund temporary accommodation to the tune of £4 million a year above what the Government pay. An extra £1.5 million will be needed to meet some of the costs of homelessness that will result from the fact that the council will not be able to place people with housing need in its council or housing association stock because it will have been sold off in order to fund the right to buy.

Chris Philp: Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the fact that in London, for every single high-value unit sold, there will be two replacements? Does she agree that, across London as a whole, that will ease the housing problems?

Karen Buck: No, I do not welcome that at all. As we heard in the superb speech from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), we do not know what tenure those homes will have or where they will go. We have no guarantees whatsoever that they will be local. Therefore, they will simply not provide an equivalent level of accommodation or meet need. I cannot remember who said this, but that could result in rental properties for low-income households in inner London being sold to subsidise homes for sale somewhere else, thereby meeting a totally different kind of need.
Westminster City Council also points out—this has not been brought up this evening—that, in order to deliver the two-for-one requirement, the increase in housing delivery would have to be dramatically increased from its current rate, but there is no indication of how that will be achieved. The council has a long list of asks as to how the high-value sales programme will be organised and how inner-London authorities, including itself, would be protected. The Minister has given no answers whatsoever.
The council has also provided further context and it is interesting, given some of our discussions about pay to stay. Government Members describe anybody with a household income of £40,000 as rich, and the council has pointed out that the Government are imposing a higher pay-to-stay requirement on such households while at the same time cutting rents. They are cutting rents for everybody, including working households. People are being asked to pay a higher rent if they have a household income of £40,000, but they get a 1% cut in their rent at the same time. I simply do not understand the logic of that.
In my local authority, the implications are a loss to the housing revenue account of £32 million over the next four years and £237 million over the next 30 years,  which will mean, as the local authority says, major cuts to the quality of existing properties or plans for new affordable house building. Yet again, the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other—indeed, they are taking away with a third hand, in this case—the capacity to provide additional homes. All that can be fairly summarised as meaning that the council that gave us homes for votes in the 1980s—the biggest scandal in modern local government history—is saying, “Even we do not like this.”
The council does not like the Government’s proposed starter homes policy either. The consultant who advised the council on the Housing and Planning Bill pointed out that a starter home capped at £450,000 in inner London, where the average open market property is going for £2 million, lavishes a gain on a particular small cohort of first-time buyers. Westminster Council states that
“the potential tax-free capital gain, after eight years of occupation…is very considerable (depending on the number of bedrooms) and wholly to the benefit of a first-time buyer”.

Michelle Donelan: It is interesting to hear about the housing market in London, but does the hon. Lady recognise that in Wiltshire, one of the fundamental reasons why we have an above-average ageing population is that young people cannot afford to buy in the area, and so they are leaving it? Does she agree that for the long-term health of communities such as mine, initiatives such as starter homes are a very good and reasonable policy that will enable people to enter the housing market?

Karen Buck: Funnily enough, that is almost the thrust of my argument. Things that are applicable in the hon. Lady’s constituency are not necessarily applicable in mine, so we want to have local flexibility and the freedom to develop a strategy that meets local needs. Also, I do not see why my constituents who are in housing need should fund home ownership for her constituents. We absolutely have to meet local needs; that is intrinsic to the idea of a local authority having statutory duties to meet housing need. I am afraid that I do not accept her point at all.
I know that other people want to speak, so I will not dwell on the issue that has already been raised—I have also raised it previously—about the income that people need to afford starter homes in places such as central London. It seems extraordinary that, on one hand, we think that social housing is a rare good that has to be rationed because we have to speak the language of priorities, but, on the other hand, our priorities are such that we can afford to give a 20% discount to people with incomes of up to £77,000 in central London. My colleagues and I, and Westminster City Council, make it absolutely clear that the strategy, as it is being imposed across the country, will have a very serious and negative effect in central London. It will provide a windfall gain for a very lucky and small cohort of people—good luck to them—but that, critically, will be bought at the expense of others.
I remind the House what we have seen in recent years as a consequence of the Government’s catastrophic housing failure. In my area, we have 600 fewer social housing units than we had in 2009. We have 2,414 households in temporary accommodation. The number  of people in housing need on the housing register has doubled to 4,500 since it was redefined, and reduced, in 2012. We have 1.2 million people on the housing register across the country. There has been an 80% rise in homelessness acceptances in London. We have seen a soaring housing benefit bill in the private sector, and a time bomb of housing benefit expenditure is coming down the line as low-income households are forced into the private rented sector. That is all before the Government cut housing benefit still further.
I end by going back to the point about the lottery. Good luck to those people who get the benefit of high value starter homes, but why should that be at the expense of people such as my constituents: the healthcare assistant I met last week, who is bidding for housing association homes where the monthly rent is more than her take-home pay; the family so overcrowded that their little son, who is suffering from skin cancer, has to share a bed with his siblings; the family of six—two parents and four young adults, two of whom are severely disabled—in a property so small that their wheelchair-bound son is unable to do his required physiotherapy; or the mum with two young children who was moved from Westminster and her local job to the edge of London, from where she has to commute in, getting her children up at 5.30 in the morning and returning home at 9.15 in the evening, who is weeping with the stress of her experience—it is duplicated in hundreds of other families—and who tells me that her daughter does not want to live with her anymore because she cannot bear the stress of homelessness? The Housing and Planning Bill, unfortunately, says that those people and their needs do not matter, and that housing will not be provided for people like them.
Much as I applaud initiatives to support affordable home ownership—and I do—I do not think that it should be achieved at the expense of people in housing need. That is what the Bill does, and that is why it is so pernicious. That is why I hope that we will be able to secure progress on at least some of the amendments that were achieved in the other place a couple of weeks ago.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), although I suspect that my perspective on housing in London, the south-east and the rest of the country is very different from hers. We have to start from the housing problems that we have and to remember that, as I think the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, for far too long, we have not built enough homes—irrespective of whether they are for sale, for rent or for social rent—in this country. The key point is that we have to ensure that the delivery of new housing begins apace, and the Bill contributes towards exactly that requirement.
We need to face up to the fact that a small number of very large house builders in this country ration the development of land to maximise their profits from the sale of the homes that they build. We must break the stranglehold of that consortium and encourage small developers to develop new groups of houses, which will give people the opportunity to buy those homes. In addition, over the past 10 years, social rented accommodation has been completed solely by registered social landlords—what we call housing associations—which  sit on huge bank balances and assets that they could utilise to build far more units than they do. Far too many housing associations are coasting and not providing the sort of accommodation that we all wish to see. Somehow, we have to break through.
The Bill also resolves the problem that it is very hard for young people to afford the deposit that they need to buy their first home. The principle—the Labour party has not yet fully appreciated this—is that the Government are switching resources from social rented accommodation to the development of starter homes for sale, so that young people and families have the chance to own their own home. Home ownership among that group of people has dropped through the floor. The average age at which someone buys their first property is now about 37, and it is going up all the time. Many people now believe that they will never own their own home, because their income is insufficient.

Stewart Jackson: Is there not an issue of fairness and social equality here? It was reported today that 25% of the funding for first-time buyers comes from mum and dad—the family. Is it not unfair that if an individual has wealthy parents, their parents can cascade that wealth to them? This policy, under a Conservative Government, will spread the wealth and enable people on modest incomes not to have to rely on the bank of mum and dad to buy their first home.

Bob Blackman: It is quite clear that we want a more democratic system in which people have the opportunity to buy their own homes. The principle introduced in the Bill of encouraging home ownership through that process must be right. Equally, it is quite clear that an unfinished piece of business from the Thatcher revolution of the sale of council homes under the right to buy was that housing association tenants did not have the same opportunity, so I am delighted that the Government are putting that right.
It is right to ensure that people who exercise the right to buy continue to live in their properties as owner-occupiers. It is not right that people should suddenly have a windfall because, having been in social rented accommodation, they are offered a discount on a property that they can either immediately resell or re-let. There should be a taper, and I am glad that the Government have seen sense in accepting that such a taper should apply. There is an argument—or a discussion—about where the taper should start, but the reality is that the vast majority of people see that as the right way forward. People buying a property under the buy-to-let process should also have the opportunity to ensure that they get a discount under the Help to Buy arrangements but, equally, they should not be allowed suddenly to get a windfall and then move on.

Catherine West: What does the hon. Gentleman think of the suggestion recently made by one of my constituents that the right to buy should also apply to private sector tenancies? Should there be a public subsidy so that somebody has the right to purchase a private tenancy?

Bob Blackman: It is quite clear there should be an opportunity for everyone to exercise the right to buy. In London, people who use buy-to-let arrangements are getting a return of probably about 3% to 4% on their  capital. They are not necessarily getting a huge rate of return, so they are providing facilities for people to live in accommodation when those people cannot possibly afford to buy their own home, or choose not to do so. There are people who choose to rent rather than buy because that suits their lifestyle better.
I want to move on to an issue that seems to have been forgotten in all this. The reality is that someone who demonstrates that their housing need is sufficient—in other words, they are homeless—has a chance of winning the lottery prize of getting social rented accommodation. If they currently get such a prize, they can live in the property for the rest of their life, regardless of their income. That has to be wrong; it should not happen. People come to me every day and say, “I can’t get a council property. I can’t afford to rent a property in the constituency. All the local authority is offering is, with respect, a place in Bradford, Wolverhampton or somewhere in Birmingham, but nowhere near London.” The reality is that people are being priced out of the market because we are building too few homes and, equally, we are allowing people to live in social rented accommodation for far too long after their incomes have risen considerably. That cannot be right. Social rented accommodation should be for people who need it.

Clive Betts: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that pay to stay is intended to drive people out of social rented accommodation when they earn more than £40,000? Will they actually be priced out? He seems to be implying that if they live in social housing, there will not be enough social housing for other people, and that we therefore need to get them out of such properties so that poorer people can have them.

Bob Blackman: No. This is where there might be differences between London and the south-east, and other parts of the country. The vast majority of London council house tenants, and even housing association tenants, are on the maximum housing benefit, so the public sector is picking up the cost of their rent. I am saying that if someone is earning more—if they are above the threshold—they should contribute more to the cost of their rent. When we examine the figures, we can see that tenants actually pay very little in rent in most parts of London at the moment because housing benefit picks up the cost of their rent. I am saying that if people are employed in reasonable occupations with reasonable incomes, it is right that they should contribute to the cost of public sector housing, and that principle is set out in the Bill. It is the right approach and one we should thoroughly endorse tonight. It is important to put on record that this is not an attempt to force people out of social rented accommodation; it is a matter of fairness and of people paying their way reasonably.
Transport for London has 5,700 acres of land in London, and while not all of it is developable, a lot of it is. That is one public authority in London that has an opportunity to provide land that could be used for the development of housing for rent or for sale. I piloted the Bill that will enable TfL to provide the homes that are required, and it was interesting that the only opposition to it came from London Labour Members, who opposed the opportunity for more than 50,000 homes to be built  in London for the very people they represent. I suggest that we should reject all the Lords amendments that are a deliberate attempt to wreck the scope of the Bill, which contributes to the creation of more housing and more affordable housing, to the opportunity for people to own their own homes, and to local authorities working in partnership with the Government to deliver the homes that people want.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman has had much to say about pay to stay, but has he looked at the Government’s own consultation on the policy, which showed that 75% of people disagreed with the thresholds that the Government are setting? In fact, a huge majority disagreed with the voluntary policy that is already in place with a threshold of £60,000. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that this policy is readily accepted by everyone; it simply is not, and not at the current thresholds.

Bob Blackman: If individuals are not contributing additional rent towards the social rent they are being charged at the moment, I can understand people saying, “I don’t want to pay any more.” Who would want to pay more? That is a foolish view to put forward. We must ask what is fair and reasonable to ensure that we can change the situation in this country by creating more housing and encouraging the development of more housing, while making sure that people pay a reasonable rent so that they are not subsidised by other taxpayers on lower incomes who are struggling either in private rented accommodation or to buy their own homes. Such a view is not fair or reasonable, and it must change.
I end, as I began, by saying that I commend the Bill and the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. I trust that we will reject all the Lords amendments that the Government oppose and that we will support the Government amendments.

Dawn Butler: We have just heard about the land held by TfL, and Labour Members are seeking guarantees that houses built on TfL land will be properly affordable for people living in London. There is only one person who has guaranteed that that will be the case: my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) wants to ensure that affordable houses are built on TfL land, I recommend that he votes for my right hon. Friend on Thursday.

Chris Philp: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Butler: I will not give way now as I want to get into my stride.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and I were in the Members’ Tea Room not long ago exchanging really sad stories about our constituents. It was heartbreaking for us to share those housing stories. More than anyone else on the Opposition Benches, we need to ensure that the Bill is right for our constituents in London.
At the moment, the Bill is a disaster for London. It redefines affordable housing to include starter homes, the price cap for which, at the moment, is set at £450,000. I will explain how that affects my constituents in Brent Central. Twenty per cent. of £450,000 is £90,000, which  brings the rough cost of starter homes in Brent down to £360,000. If a mortgage for £360,000 with an interest rate of 3.92% is to be repaid over 25 years, that means a payment of £1,884 per month. The median household income in Brent is £31,601, and an individual earning that amount will bring home £2,054.66 a month after tax. That means that the average person in my constituency would have to spend 91.6% of their entire average income on mortgage repayments, which is most definitely not affordable. The independent housing charity Shelter estimates—we have heard this before—that Londoners need £77,000 a year to afford a starter home. The Bill hits London councils the hardest, and essentially hollows out the capital.
The Lords amended the Bill to guarantee that when council homes are sold, local authorities will be able to replace them with new homes for social rent in local areas—for doctors, nurses, teachers, and everyone who is working and earning an average wage in London. That puts into practice the principle behind the amendment tabled last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. The Khan amendment set out that if a home for social rent is sold off, it must be replaced by a new home for rent in the same area. That is important, because otherwise we are socially cleansing people out of a certain area, which is wrong. We have heard the arguments many times, and sometimes speeches from Government Members sound very muddled. We need to trust local authorities to know their need when it comes to providing housing for the local area.
All Members must support that principle if they are serious about protecting London’s great mix of people across our city. We need to protect the doctors, the nurses, the teachers, the shop workers and the cleaners to make sure that we have the diverse London that won us the Olympics of which we are so proud.
I will not speak for much longer, but I want to say that selling off high-value council homes makes no sense. In Brent, it will mean that we sell off more than 70 family homes a year. Are we saying that people should not have large families? Thank the Lord, I say, with regard to the Lords amendments; I hope that the Minister and Conservative Members will accept them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I am not going to impose a time limit, but there are still 10 Members who wish to speak in the debate and we have less than an hour to go. If people stick to about five minutes or so, everyone will be able to get in.

Chloe Smith: I will speak specifically against Lords amendment 54. Local authorities should not have local discretion to apply pay to stay. I will raise a very clear example that shows the worst possible risk of local self-interest.
Norwich City Council, I am sorry to report, is led by Labour, although we have elections on Thursday. The Norwich Labour party may be having a rather difficult week—the leader of the Labour party is no doubt right now looking into reported extreme tweets from the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis).
The leader of Norwich City Council himself, Councillor Alan Waters, lives in one of his own council homes. In fact, he is not alone in doing so. So many Labour  councillors on Norwich City Council live in their own council housing that they cannot even recuse themselves from business relating to their pecuniary interest, as clearly laid out in the standards expected of councillors; in response to my investigations on this topic, a city council spokesman confirmed in March that so many councillors were taking advantage of their own housing that the political balance of the council would be affected if all tenants took no part in discussions about housing policy. That means that councillors are being allowed to take part in discussions about council housing even though they have personal financial interests in it.
More specifically, the leader of the council is himself likely to be a high-income tenant under the terms of the Bill. His own register of interests at City Hall clearly shows that as well as living in one of his own Norwich City Council houses, he holds a professional job in London and Norwich and a directorship, all while earning well over many people’s minimum wage from council expenses alone. Of course the leader of Norwich City Council will not want higher earning tenants to pay a fairer rent, because he is likely to be one of them. If his Labour friends in the Lords were to get away with letting councils have discretion over the policy, of course he would not enact it in Norwich.
The policy should be enacted because it means that better-off tenants will pay their way—or, indeed, move out to allow poorer families who really need a council home to have it. There are thousands of families in Norwich on the housing waiting list. Those who argue against the policy seem to believe that if people living in council housing earn a bit more, they should not pay a bit more in rent, and that people on any amount of money should be able to continue to live in public housing, subsidised by the taxpayer. People might remember that union baron Bob Crow lived in a council house until he died, yet reportedly earned £145,000.
I simply do not think it is right for the struggling family who really need that home to be denied a place because a well-off person has it. That is why I support the Bill, as a Norwich MP who wants people to be able fairly to get the homes they dearly need, and why I am speaking against Lords amendment 54.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend has jogged my memory. Unfortunately, I forgot to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and draw it to the attention of the House. May I use this opportunity to correct the record?

Chloe Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend’s doing so, because it shows the kind of principles that we should uphold in public life. We seek integrity and honesty in public life. That goes to the heart of my point. It is particularly hypocritical and wrong if a local council leader opposes this policy while standing to gain personally from doing so.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. Does she remember the time, not that long ago—about half a dozen years—when the Labour party was on the side of working people and was considering reforms of lifetime tenancies of council houses? Now, for purely political reasons, it is not on the side of working people but, for electoral reasons, on the side of people who support the Labour party. That is why it opposes this policy.

Chloe Smith: I welcome that reminder from my hon. Friend. Like him, I urge people to vote Conservative in city council elections this week, because on the one side we have self-interest, and on the other the principles of public office. Those principles are very clear: council leaders, like all of us, should be upholding integrity, accountability and honesty in public office.
The people of Norwich deserve higher standards of integrity from the leader of our council, rather than a strong smell of self-interest and personal gain. The thousands of people in Norwich on the housing waiting list deserve better. People across the country deserve better than a watered-down pay to stay that could allow local weakness to stand in the way of right and wrong. I urge hon. Members to join me in opposing Lords amendment 54, and to uphold the right thing to do by asking those who are better off to pay accordingly.

David Lammy: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, because I know that many other Members wish to. I will therefore not take any interventions.
The Government’s own figures show that rough sleeping has increased by 30% over the past year, and it has almost doubled since they came to power back in 2010. The Mayor of London promised to tackle homelessness in the capital, but it has doubled over his period in City Hall. The Combined Homelessness and Information Network found that there are 7,500 rough sleepers on London’s streets alone. Councils are spending a staggering £623,000 every single day on temporary bed and breakfast accommodation just to put a roof over the heads of vulnerable families. That equates to £227.5 million last year, a rise of over £60 million on the previous year. The overwhelming majority of that money—some £176 million —was spent in London; 10% of the total figure—some £20 million—was spent in my home borough, the London borough of Haringey.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, which has looked into the extension of the right to buy. Its report makes sobering reading. The Government have not published a proper impact assessment on the full extent of the right to buy. In fact, my hon. Friend said:
“The Government should be embarrassed by the findings of this Report.”
I could not agree more.
I ask the Government why they are planning to push through changes that would reduce social housing stock by 370,000 by 2020. That figure is not from the Labour party; it is from the Chartered Institute of Housing. Why are they proposing to push that through? They are stretching councils to breaking point but are not even prepared to publish an impact assessment. Homelessness will increase and more families will end up in temporary accommodation. More families on low incomes will be reliant on the private rented sector. Of course, if they are reliant on the private rented sector, who will pick up the bill for that? We the taxpayer will, because housing benefit will increase.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that there is a phenomenon known as “right to buy to let”, which has seen, for example, ex-council flats on the Amberley estate in my constituency, which would have  been rented for £140 a week under the council, now being rented for £690 a week? In some cases, they are used to place homeless families in temporary accommodation. Is that not a phenomenal waste of resources?

David Lammy: It is a phenomenal waste of resources. Usually, although we play party politics and there are dividing lines, there are issues on which there is some agreement. But here we have a Bill that offers a discount to those who can be earning up to £77,000, and there is already a discount for right to buy. The housing benefit bill is bound to go up. How is that a sensible Conservative policy? That is what I would like the Minister to explain. On what analysis is that fiscally sensible? It does not feel fiscally sensible to me to introduce a set of policies that will not only run a coach and horses through our housing policy, but actually cost the taxpayer more in the long run.
That is all in addition to the issues of social exclusion and, I believe, social cohesion that will inevitably follow in parts of London. It has been said before that what we are seeing in London—this Bill will make this worse—is a move towards what we see in Paris, with an inner sanctum that is very well off, surrounded by an outer banlieue where people who are very poor move when they are increasingly pushed out. We should commit to having a balanced situation. Of course we want to help people on to the housing ladder, but surely we do not want to drive the very poorest into some of the most squalid housing in the city and then ask taxpayers to subsidise it.
Only last Thursday it was reported that Camden Council will be auctioning off £150 million of council homes on the private market in order to pay for these short-sighted reforms. Those council homes should be going to families on the capital’s waiting lists, but instead they are being sold to private buyers. For what reason? Is it fund the fire sale of yet more council properties to tenants at a discount rate under the right to buy? It just does not make sense. I am putting on my best Conservative hat and trying to understand it, but I am struggling—usually I can just about get there, but I cannot on this occasion. I am really looking forward to hearing the Minister explain this.
Last month I asked the Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure that replacements under the replacement housing scheme will be provided. He told me that
“housing associations will have the flexibility to replace nationally.”
He has repeated that line today, but the House has pressed him for detail. He is an educated man, so can we get into the detail, because this is important stuff that we are being asked to see through? He has been asked for detail by the Public Accounts Committee and its Chair, but we have heard absolutely none. When there is no detail, as this House knows from experience, it is usually because it has been done on the back of an envelope. We will be back here in a few years’ time to tidy up this mess—when I say “we”, I mean the House as a whole. Where is the detail? We need to hear more about what flexibility he actually means.
In London there were just 4,881 affordable homes built last year, which is the lowest number since 2008. How will this Bill make that any better? It will not, and that is why we oppose it.

Ben Howlett: I will try to be a little more sober in my approach to this debate. It is a privilege to be able to rise to speak in favour of the Bill. As Members across the House will know, I have raised my concerns about the high cost of housing in my constituency and other high-value areas on multiple occasions, and I have been supportive of the Government’s plans to build 400,000 affordable homes by 2020-21. Starter homes will make a massive impact in the west of England, enabling young families—and indeed families who are not young—to get on the property ladder. I think that is an incredibly important story to tell. I join other Members across the House who have talked about the importance of the housing debate, not just in London, but in other high-value areas throughout the UK.
I am fortunate enough to have got myself on the property ladder at a little bit younger than the average age, aged 29, but that was only because my other half and I were able to combine our earnings in order to afford a two-bedroom house worth £450,000. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), and not just because I went to Durham University and one of the first elections I campaigned in was in her constituency—sadly, we did not win, but we did get rid of those Liberal Democrats, as we managed to do in Bath as well—but I take umbrage with the Labour party on this point, because if a two-bedroom home that costs £450,000 is good enough not to do anything, frankly, I do not think that is an argument that will wash very well with her constituents; it certainly would not wash with any of our constituents.
I am confident that the Bill, which we have now been debating for months, will go some way towards helping Bath residents access the housing ladder. During an earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill I joined several other Government Members, as the Minister has said, in calling for more to be done to increase the amount of affordable housing in high-value areas outside the capital, including Oxford, Winchester, Truro and Bath. Those are all beautiful places, so it is understandable that demand for houses there is very high. In such areas it is often young, aspiring homeowners who do not have the chance to buy, especially when they do not have the financial support of a relative. I do not want those groups to be put off moving to those areas, and ultimately staying there, simply because they could not find a deposit. That has a major impact on economies outside London that are desperate for houses to be built to ensure they have the workers to maintain their economic growth. The west of England has increased its growth rate substantially over the past five years, as a result of the Government’s economic policies, but without housing integrated into the equation, we cannot maintain that.
I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet fellow MPs to discuss this issue and for taking our views into consideration. I agree with him that one answer to the problem is to increase the housing stock in higher-value areas. After talks with him, I am pleased to see the Government amendment changing “higher” to “high”, which will allow them the flexibility to ensure that areas with the highest-value housing are not unfairly impacted. That will have a major impact on the flexibility local authorities have to deliver more homes. I am also pleased that the Government have listened to our concerns and ensured that for every home a local authority agrees to sell, at least one new affordable home will be provided.  Such measures will increase our housing stock and allow more young people to access the housing ladder. It also suggests that the Minister has listened to the concerns of the past and produced sensible proposals to ensure that housing is built rather than lost.
I applaud the Government for taking those important steps, but they will not, sadly, increase the housing stock in Bath, where the local authority has already taken steps to sell vacant high-value housing, having sold off a lot of homes for social housing. I therefore welcome what the Minister said earlier and call on Bath and North East Somerset Council to work with fellow councils, such as Wiltshire, Somerset and South Gloucestershire, to bid for the £1.2 billion and other funds available to deliver more homes for our areas. I look forward to working with the Minister, I hope, to see how our authority can put that into practice.

Bob Blackman: Is not one problem in this debate that a property will be sold for a certain value—the open-market value less the discount—but that the cost of building a home is normally much less? That great benefit could be used for new housing.

Ben Howlett: I completely agree. The sale of one high-value asset in a high-value area, such as Oxford, could enable more than just one new home to be built, because it costs a lot less to build, particularly given the current style of building adopted in some cities to keep up with demand. That is learning the lessons of the problems in the 1980s when these things were not taken into consideration, and it is thus another reason to back the Government’s proposals and not to listen to the wrecking amendments from the Lords.
I look forward to the housing revolution by 2020, and I hope that the House will reject the wrecking amendments from the House of Lords and back the Government on this vital Bill.

Tom Brake: I am a member of Sutton Housing Society Ltd, although I have no pecuniary interest.
I will start where the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee finished, on the issue of supply. The Bill should be about supply in the widest sense, but while I do not doubt that Ministers are seeking to solve housing problems for some, I am afraid that the Bill will do nothing for the people I see regularly in my constituency surgeries. Nothing in it will help the single mother I referred to earlier, living and working in London on £17,000 a year and seeking a better private rented property or social housing through a housing association. Nor will it help the couple I saw a few months ago in a two-bedroom flat with three children, who could not afford the rent in a housing association property, let alone afford to buy in London.
We have heard about the Khan amendments, but perhaps I could throw in the Caroline Pidgeon amendments, which unfortunately do not feature in any of the strings today. The advantage of her proposal for London is that it includes a revenue stream of £2 billion to deliver the housing. Many have said they will deliver housing, but in practice we are still hundreds of thousands of properties short.
The Bill has been subject to an extraordinary number of amendments and no fewer than 13 Government defeats in the Lords, which is testimony to the fact that  the Bill was presented to the House lacking a huge amount of detail and clarity. I thought we might get some here but that has not, I am afraid, been the case. The Bill contains provisions that will have extremely concerning consequences for housing in the UK and affordable housing in particular, and the fact that there has been such united cross-party opposition to the Bill in the Lords, including from Cross Benchers, indicates the depth of concern.
The Bill’s focus is on home ownership for better-off renters, but it neglects affordable homes to rent and clearly seeks to reduce the number of social homes provided by local authorities. As Opposition Members have said, the impact will undoubtedly be a rise in homelessness. Furthermore, far too much is being imposed on local authorities, in terms of sales of higher-value council homes, pay to stay and secure tenancies. It is encouraging, however, that the Government have taken on board some of the serious concerns and made concessions in relation to amendments 26 to 36, on abandonment, and amendments 90 and 91, on mandatory electrical safety checks for private tenants. Those are welcome.
I also welcome the Government’s recent inclusion in the Bill of a commitment to replace all homes sold off under the sale of higher-value properties. Replacements are critical to whether the Bill will have a devastating impact on social housing. In the past, promises of replacement have been made but not delivered, and as several Members have mentioned, it is critical that the replacement is like for like, in terms of the type of property, and in the same area.
In London, pay to stay is of particular concern. Some Members might be aware of a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2014 that found that a family of two adults and two children needed an income of £40,000 to have an acceptable standard of living. That was an average across the whole country. Given that that was two years ago and an average for the country as a whole, it is clear that families on £40,000 in London would not be wealthy. I hope that the Government will look favourably on amendment 57, which would raise the threshold by £10,000 and might actually get people up to an acceptable standard of living before their income is reduced by rising rents in their social property. In addition, I will certainly support amendment 55, if it is pressed to a vote, and amendment 54. If they are pressed, I will also support amendments 9 and 47, which were debated earlier.
With that and within your five-minute margin, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will sit down.

James Cartlidge: I start by declaring my housing interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They include a significant involvement in shared ownership, which it is almost impossible not to speak about in such a debate.
I want to focus on starter homes, on how they interact with other affordable home ownership products and, more importantly, on how they will affect my constituents. I am intrigued by the idea, in amendment 1, that someone would repay the 20% discount over 20 years. It is unclear how it would work in practice—I apologise for not having studied the Lords Hansard for a lengthy  explanation. Would the money be repaid on the sale of the property only, or would it be a credit agreement repaid annually? If, on the sale of a property, someone’s circumstances had worsened or they were unemployed—people sell their properties when their circumstances change—would they still have to repay the equity discount from which they had benefited? We must remember that whenever we add complexity to a home ownership product, lenders do not like it and are less likely to be involved. I make that impartial observation as a former mortgage broker.
My other point about amendment 1 is that we must remember that it is relatively unprecedented in affordable home ownership products to have repayment of the subsidy from which the homeowner has benefited. With shared ownership, grant is implicit, but when someone sells their share, they do not repay the part that came from the Government grant. They have become a homeowner, and they benefit or otherwise from the increase in the value of the share.
Under the Labour Government, there was a product called “price discount covenant”, and I remember dealing with it when I was a broker. There was a perpetual discount there, which meant that there was less of an argument about whether it should be repaid. The problem was that mortgage lenders do not like perpetual discounts, and there were only two active lenders, who required a much higher deposit than would otherwise have been the case.
We do have equity loan products. The largest scheme for funding home ownership at the moment is an equity loans scheme, whereby people receive a loan for a 20% deposit, and with their own 5% deposit, they can buy a 75% loan to value on a new-build property. The beauty of the discount scheme, as I understand it, is that it does not include an equity loan; it is paid for by taking affordable housing allocations on a development through a section 106 agreement. In that sense, it is an eminently sensible policy.
Probably the most important amendment on starter homes for Conservative Members is Lords amendment 9. It looks very innocent:
“An English planning authority may only grant planning permission for a residential development having had regard to the provision of starter homes based on its own assessment of local housing need and viability.”
I can understand why Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Select Committee Chairman, would want more clarity on how starter homes will mix with other affordable housing tenures. To that extent, we might say that we can understand why the amendment was tabled. Government Members, however, ask ourselves whether it is because of some commitment to localism and giving local areas a say, or is it because their Lordships do not like the idea of starter homes, and this is a wrecking amendment, which would mean that many councils would ensure that these schemes never saw the light of day. That is our concern, and it is why I believe that most of my hon. Friends are likely to vote against the amendment.
The interaction of starter homes with other products is important. The most extraordinary point that I have heard in the debate is the criticism of the affordability  of a starter home. By definition, it is singularly the most affordable product. Let me explain why. I have had a lot of experience with shared ownership, so I know it is a good and sustainable product that has lasted a long time. With a shared ownership property, people buy a share and put down a deposit in respect of it. They are tenants, engaged in a process of “part buy, part rent”—a stepping stone towards full ownership. Here is the key point. The person pays the market price for the property. Yes, they buy a share in it, but the full market price is paid in total.
As part of my business interests I used to run a website in conjunction with the Greater London Authority, which displayed all the shared ownership properties in London. I can tell Members that the average price is £450,000. In places such as Notting Hill, shared ownership properties have been re-sold at £800,000 or £900,000. We have received emails, saying “This isn’t an affordable housing website because these properties are £600,000 or £700,000”, but that is not the point. Shared ownership does not affect the market price. The property is still sold at the prevailing market price. It simply provides a mechanism to pay a lower deposit.
I see that you are calling me to conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me finish with one final point—an extraordinary statistic—about South Suffolk. It is predicted that by 2035, there will be 4,000 more people in the starter-home age bracket in my constituency— aged 25 to 39—while there will be 84,000 more people aged 65 to 90. As I say, it is an incredible statistic. I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan)—that the most important benefit from starter homes is that it will encourage more young people to remain in constituencies such as South Suffolk and will attract people in that age bracket so that we can make our communities more sustainable.

Helen Hayes: I congratulate their Lordships on their meticulous and effective scrutiny of the Housing and Planning Bill and on their staunch opposition to many of its most damaging provisions. Having heard the Government response, what remains is an ideological commitment to the undermining of social and genuinely affordable housing, which flies in the face of evidence from across the housing sector; and a package of measures that will fail to deliver for my constituents and for people across the country the solutions to the housing crisis that they so desperately need.
There is a universal consensus that starter homes will be out of reach for people on median incomes in most areas of the country, and particularly in London, and that the very strong obligations on councils to deliver starter homes will undermine their ability both to deliver genuinely affordable homes and to meet local housing needs. Councils will see their waiting lists grow, while scarce valuable land will be used up delivering homes that very few can afford. Home ownership will not grow in the way that Members on both sides of the House would like to see it grow, while too many people are spending too high a proportion of their income on rent and letting agents fees in the private sector to be able to save for a deposit.
It is therefore extremely disappointing that the Government are refusing to accept Lords amendment 9, which would allow councils to decide how many starter  homes are built, based on their own assessment of local housing need. It is astonishing that in their ideological commitment to starter homes, the Government are prepared to override the detailed local knowledge of councils and their ability to respond best to what their local communities need.
It is also disappointing that the Government are refusing to accept Lords amendment 47, which would allow councils to retain the receipts from the forced sale of higher value council homes to provide new homes of a tenure that is in demand locally. Without this amendment, there is no guarantee that homes built to replace those sold under right to buy or forced sale will be of the same tenure, or indeed in the same area, and this will have a devastating impact on the social mix and economy of London in particular, and in many other areas.
The abolition of secure tenancies is deeply concerning. I welcome the extension of the maximum length of a social tenancy from five years to 10, and the introduction of some protection for families with children, but I continue to question the principle of the abolition of secure tenancies. People on lower incomes aspire just as much to a secure home as those who can afford to raise a mortgage. I remain concerned that fixed-term tenancies of 10 years simply postpone the anxiety that will surround the ending of the tenancy.
A tenancy review for families with grown-up children presents the very real prospect that adult children may no longer be accepted as a legitimate part of the household for any new tenancy for the purposes of a housing needs assessment. Where would our young adults go then? It would be far better if the Government accepted the benefits of secure tenancies for families and communities, and removed this damaging measure from the Bill.
I remain concerned about the pay-to-stay provisions, which are a further attack on hard-working tenants—a tax on aspiration and achievement. I recently heard from a constituent who had lived with her partner and children in a council home for 14 years. She wrote:
“You see, our joint income for 2015-2016 is estimated to be £38,000. That’s with me working part time and my partner working full time. I intend to work full time from September 2016. If I do then our income will be over £40,000—the government have decided I will have to pay market value rent. I’m sickened at the idea of having to move as there is no way we can pay that level of rent. We don’t have any savings so we are in no position to even contemplate getting a mortgage.”
How can the Government justify legislation that will have such perverse and damaging consequences?
Let me turn now to the elephant in the room. The single biggest cause of homelessness is now the ending of a private tenancy, yet this Bill does absolutely nothing to improve either security of tenure or affordability for the millions of people living in the private rented sector. I have been contacted by 50 constituents since the beginning of January—more than two a week—who are facing homelessness, the vast majority of them in the private rented sector. Residents whose private tenancy comes to an end are increasingly ending up in temporary accommodation at great financial cost to the public sector and great personal cost to the residents and their children, who often end up a long way from their children’s schools, in overcrowded accommodation, too often sharing kitchens and bathrooms with strangers.
In the London Borough of Lambeth alone, there are 5,000 children living in temporary accommodation—more than in the entire city of Birmingham in a single London borough. The Housing and Planning Bill entirely ignores the plight of these families. It will make it harder for them to access a genuinely affordable home to rent; impossible for them to access a secure tenancy; and offers no hope that their family’s next private tenancy will have any more security than the last. How can the Government introduce major housing legislation that ignores the single biggest cause of homelessness?
The housing crisis has become all-pervading. It is already affecting London’s public services, with schools and the NHS finding it difficult to recruit suitably qualified and experienced staff, and it is affecting London’s economy, as the workforce our city needs cannot afford to live here. This Bill will make the situation worse.
We are debating this Bill during a week when Londoners will vote for our next Mayor. We need a Mayor who will stand up for Londoners who are unable to afford a secure home to rent or to buy. We need a Mayor who will make good use of publicly owned land to deliver genuinely affordable homes. We need a Mayor who will stand up for Londoners against a Government who are determined to divide our city, undermine our diversity and make it a place where only the wealthy can afford to live. I look forward to seeing my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) doing just that in two days’ time.

Kevin Hollinrake: Opposition Members have made the point that starter homes will be built, rather than affordable homes to rent. That is, of course, true to some extent, because people want to buy homes and people on lower incomes have been excluded from the housing market for too long. We have been building an average of 50,000 affordable homes to rent for the last 20 years. Why have we not been building more affordable houses for sale, if that is what people want? Given that we have 20 years of catching up to do, it is absolutely right for the Government to set the ambitious target of building 200,000 starter homes over the next four years.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) gave the example of someone who will have earned £40,000 by the end of this year and is living in an affordable rented property. The average price of a London home for a first-time buyer is £250,000. I believe that, under this policy, a starter home in London could be built for about £200,000. The information provided by Shelter about the unaffordability of starter homes in most local authority areas is flawed, or deliberately misleading, because it is based on the median house price. First-time buyers buy at around 25% below the median house price, and in my area, the average house price is about £200,000.

David Lammy: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the figures given by the Office for National Statistics, which has said that the average first-time buyer in London paid £400,000 last year?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am not aware of the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the average house  price for first-time buyers in Greater London is £250,000. In my area the average house price is more than £200,000, but we have some very nice villages in which the average is £300,000. First-time buyers will pay about £150,000, and will move a few miles away from those nice villages to buy in a more affordable area. If they can buy at 20% below that value, they will pay £120,000. Bringing property for home ownership into the reach of many more people is absolutely the right thing to do, and this policy is clearly very popular with first-time buyers.

Victoria Borwick: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, over the last eight years, the current Mayor of London has built more than 100,000 affordable homes? Moreover, the public land database established by the London Land Commission, supported by the Chancellor, will reveal that there is space for another 400,000 homes on brownfield sites. It will show that not only the Transport for London land that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) but other public land will be publicly available to enable the next Mayor—who we hope will be my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—to deal with the housing crisis.

Kevin Hollinrake: I welcome the building of properties for all tenures, because lack of supply is at the heart of the big issues that affect the housing market.
This policy is also popular with local residents. If there are to be new developments in their areas, they want to see properties that local people can afford. There is a feeling that people in affordable properties for rent may have no connection with the area. People who buy affordable homes are much more likely to have that local connection and commitment, so I welcome the Government’s proposals.
Of course we need to ensure that properties are delivered for all types of tenure, and I am convinced that that will happen. The Government are consulting on the proposal that about 20% of a development of 10 units or more should be for starter homes. The average number of number of affordable homes on a site is more like 35%, so there will be room for affordable homes to rent as well. It will clearly not be possible to achieve the 20% target in some cases for reasons of viability or because other kinds of development have been allowed, so I hope the Government will consider whether allowing a percentage of the affordable homes on that development to be starter homes might be more appropriate, but we certainly want to increase the number of properties being built. I believe that that objective is at the heart of the Bill, and I shall enjoy walking through the Lobbies this evening to support the Government.

Catherine West: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
I shall be brief, because I know that the hour of the vote is upon us, but I could not resist speaking. Since I was elected a year ago, 1,300 people have come to my advice surgery or have contacted me, and 60% of complaints have been about housing. People have wanted to get on to the housing ladder, have been party to unsatisfactory private rental agreements, or have desperately needed a social home.
It is great that so many London Members have spoken today. Many of us look forward to a wonderful result on Thursday and a more positive approach to housing in London. I am sorry to say that, when it comes to housing for people on ordinary incomes, the record of the current Mayor of London has been pathetic. As a council leader—I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—I was involved in a number of rows with him. When the council said, “This must be 50% genuinely affordable,” he changed the definition of affordable homes to 80% of the market rate which, in inner London, is utterly unaffordable for the average worker. He also called in applications proactively. When we had agreed with developers about 50% affordability, he turned the application on its head and gave in to the developers. We need a Mayor who will stand up for Londoners and hold developers’ feet to the fire. We need a Mayor who will do the opposite of what was done then and call in developments when councils are not providing enough affordable property.
Let me say a little about the private rented sector. This is not just a London issue, because 4 million families in the country are now renting private property. This is not just a minority interest for London Members; the problem exists across the board. The insecurity that families in the private rented sector feel must be taken much more seriously. It is a crying shame that, notwithstanding all the parliamentary time that we have had in which to debate this matter, and despite all the thinking that has been done in the House of Lords and here in the House of Commons, we have come up with no more than paltry recommendations for an unfair housing sector in which rents go up at the drop of a hat, agents can charge ridiculous fees just to photocopy a rental agreement, and people regularly have to change schools and GPs, which involves a massive cost. In the previous Parliament, housing benefit cost us £60 billion, which could have been spent on building more affordable homes. Why do we think that housing is such a wonderful investment for the private sector? Because of the returns. An investment of £100,000 returns that money after 10 years. It is an excellent investment, which is why housing is so expensive.
I see that you are restless for the vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end by saying that we must have some leadership from the Government on social housing. There are virtually no proposals, apart from that on starter homes, for the active promotion of high-quality communities with a mix of social homes, private homes, starter homes and key worker homes. We need to be able to take an active interest in how we shape our communities and neighbourhoods so that they are genuinely mixed, rather than being the ghettoes that proposals of this kind could potentially create.

Chris Philp: I draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me start by responding to a point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). She referred to the Government’s house building record; let me tell the House that it is a fine one. In the last year of the previous Labour Government, only 125,000 units were started. Last year, that figure had increased to 165,000 units, so this Government have a record they can be proud of when it comes to building new homes.
The hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), also talked about the need to increase supply more generally, and we on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree with that. There is much in the Bill with which their lordships have thankfully chosen not to disagree that will increase supply, including local development orders, the requirement to have local plans in place by 2017 and the work of the London Land Commission. There is a huge amount in the Bill that will increase supply, which Opposition Members have asked for.
I want to say a word in support of starter homes. We know that 86% of the citizens of this country aspire to own their own home, and starter homes will help them to do that. By owning their own home, they will benefit economically as house values go up and they pay down their mortgages, and social benefits will accrue as well. We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the importance of settled and rooted communities. What better way is there of having a settled and well-established community than by ensuring that it is a community of people who own their own homes?
Opposition Members also talked about affordability, speaking about the ceiling of £450,000 in London and £250,000 outside the capital. That is a ceiling; it is a maximum. My borough, the London Borough of Croydon, is the largest borough by population. The average starter home there will cost £190,000. That means that, with Help to Buy, a deposit of £10,000 will secure a home, and a couple earning £22,500 each will be able to afford to service the mortgage on it. In the London Borough of Croydon, starter homes will work.
On the point about increasing the supply of council houses, I must respectfully point out that in the past five years of a Conservative Government, we have built more than in the previous 13 years under Labour. I would further point out that under the rules governing the disposal of high-value council houses, one such house will replace every one that is sold outside London, and it will be two for one in London. These measures will actually increase the supply of council housing across London as a whole, so they should be welcomed.
The problem with the amendment relating to the 20 years’ discount is that if someone wants to move from their starter home, they will need to realise its full market value in order to move up the property ladder to their second and then their third home. I believe that we might see regulations that would allow for a sliding scale, perhaps between five and 10 years. Given that the average length of time spent in a property is about seven years, that would make sense.
On the amendment about local authorities being able to circumvent starter home provisions, I must point out that our proposals were part of a national manifesto commitment that was approved by the electorate at the general election, so it is quite right that they should now be implemented nationally. Local issues will be fully accounted for via the 20% discount on the open market value, which will reflect local housing need.
There is more that I could say, but I am sure that we all want to hear from the Minister. I support the Government’s position on the amendments and look forward to supporting them in the Lobby.

Brandon Lewis: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I thank all Members who have spoken about such a wide variety of subjects.
I want to make a short speech to outline some important issues. Conservative Members feel strongly that we want to return the Bill to the other place with the clear message that we want more homes to be built, not fewer; more homeowners, not fewer; and progress on increasing our housing supply. Let me put this in context by quoting from our manifesto, which resulted in our being given a mandate at the general election. It stated:
“The chance to own your own home should be available to everyone who works hard…We will…build more homes that people can afford, including 200,000 new Starter Homes…for first-time buyers under the age of 40…We will give more people the chance to own their own home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations…We will fund the replacement of properties sold under the extended Right to Buy by requiring local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, with the most expensive properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant.”
That is a direct quote from our election manifesto, and it is a promise to the people of Great Britain that we intend to keep. We also feel strongly that the Houses of Parliament should respect our mandate.
Let us also consider this in the context of the work we have been doing, which the Bill will take further—[Interruption.] The number of new homes delivered in the past year was not as low as it was under the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—he did not find this debate important enough to speak in, other than from a sedentary position—when it was just 88,000. The number of new homes delivered last year was up by 25% on the previous year, thanks to the work that we have done, and 181,000 new homes were built. Housing construction orders have doubled since 2009 and registrations are at their highest level since 2007. In fact, new housing registrations have increased in England more than three times as much as in Labour-run Wales. That gives us a clue about what Labour is doing for housing, and we as a Government are determined to go further.
When the House was asked to give the Bill a Second Reading, it delivered one of the largest majorities in this Session. That is why we believe it is important that we see more progress on delivering on the contract that we now have with the British people, who want more homes that they can afford to buy, as well as an overall increase in supply. The House once again has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to helping those who work hard to achieve their dream of home ownership. We are a Government of aspiration and opportunity, and we are getting Britain building again.
We are also a Government who will get our social housing working as efficiently and effectively as possible, not only so that more people can own their own home, but to increase the affordable housing supply overall. We will ensure that one new home is built for every high-value property sold outside London and, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), two will be built for every such home sold in London. That represents real delivery from someone who wants to represent London, with a plan to deliver more homes for London, but we have not seen that from Opposition Members. There is now a guarantee that one affordable home will replace every one sold outside London, and two in London.
We are delivering on our promises and we will continue to deliver on our contract with every person in this country that results from the mandate that they gave us. They gave us a mandate to deliver fair social rents through our first Conservative Budget in 19 years. They also gave us a mandate to deliver the ground-breaking Bill that we are discussing today. I am proud to be here today to enable us to go further with a Bill that will deliver more homes for our country.
Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day.)
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Question agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 accordingly disagreed to.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 184.
Lords amendment 184, as amended, agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Clause 4

Planning permission: provision of starter homes

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.
The House divided:
Ayes 287, Noes 172.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England:Ayes 279, Noes 158.

The House having divided: Ayes 287, Noes 172.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 10 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 9 and 10.
Lords amendment 37 disagreed to.
Clause 72

Reduction of Payment by Agreement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.
The House divided:
Ayes 288, Noes 172.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England:Ayes 279, Noes 158.

The House having divided: Ayes 288, Noes 172.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 47 disagreed to.
Clause 78

Mandatory rents for high income local authority tenants

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 54.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The House divided:
Ayes 286, Noes 171.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England:Ayes 278, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 55, 57 and 58 disagreed to.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining Lords amendments in the group. First, under the Standing Order, I must put the Question on the Lords amendments that relate exclusively to England.
Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59, 60, 88 to 96, 197 to 199 and 215 to 239 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56 and 91.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that have not been certified.
Lords amendments 61 to 87, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 195, 196 and 200 to 214 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendment 185.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Lords amendments 92 and 93 were moved by Lord Young of Cookham with the understanding of the Government. Amendment 92 deals, it says, with tenants—in fact, it is leaseholders—and amendment 93 deals with leaseholders in a commonhold agreement. Am I right in saying that they give powers to Government to propose to Parliament statutory instruments, which we can consider separately?

Lindsay Hoyle: As a man who has been here longer than most, you will know that that is not for the Chair to interpret.
After Clause 128

Neighbourhood right of appeal

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 97.
Lords amendment 100.
Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 109, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 110, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 98.
Lords amendment 99.
Lords amendments 101 to 107.
Lords amendment 111, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 112 to 181.
Lords amendment 189.
Lords amendments 192 to 194.
Lords amendments 240 to 282.

Brandon Lewis: I will try to be brief, but I want to go through a few key areas in this group of amendments. If we are to build more houses, we need to make it as simple as we can to do so, while supporting the key principles of local determination and empowerment. If we are to build new homes so that families and communities can grow, those communities need to be happy that they have a say and a voice. The more red tape there is and the more spanners there are in the system, the more the system grinds to a creaking halt, and we end up in the mess that we are trying to fix—the mess that we inherited.
As we have made clear, decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A neighbourhood plan brought into legal force is part of the development plan and must be the starting point for authorities’ decisions on applications. I want to be very clear that neighbourhood plans have weight in law. I am exceptionally proud of neighbourhood planning, as, I expect, is every Member of this House who has seen their community take the lead in deciding the future development of their area—deciding where new homes and businesses should go, what they should look like and what local infrastructure is needed.
Putting planning power in the hands of local people involves the whole community, from plan drafting to referendum stages. Local support for house building in such areas has doubled, and opposition has halved. I have spoken to people who are excited about the prospect of new homes, schools for their children as they grow older and the opportunity to have their say about how their towns and villages should grow.
Neighbourhood plans are clear evidence of our belief that decisions about community life should be taken by those communities. We can and should trust communities to make those decisions. We do only half our job if neighbourhood plans are there, but in name only. If people have exercised their right to be heard about where new homes should go, and if a group has put time and effort into doing so, I believe it is only right that the local planning authority should take notice, although I am not inclined to support Lords amendment 97 as the best way to achieve that. I am sympathetic to it—of course I am—but even in a limited form, a neighbourhood right of appeal could affect housing supply and reduce confidence in the system.
Neighbourhood plans have weight in law, and I want to make sure that we keep the spirit of the amendment and maintain that confidence. There is no stronger position for a community to hold than to have an  up-to-date neighbourhood plan in place. I believe that communities should have the reassurance that, after they have taken the time and effort to get involved, there will be additional safeguards in place to ensure that they are listened to.

Antoinette Sandbach: The Minister will be aware that in a number of areas where neighbourhood plans have been adopted, those plans are repeatedly challenged by developers making planning applications against them. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at that and tighten up the safeguards around neighbourhood planning?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She is absolutely right that there have been examples of developers having a go at getting a planning application. That is why it is important that we are very clear that where a neighbourhood plan outlines where housing should be, it should be respected by the local authority. As I said in response to a very similar point, it should also be respected by planning inspectors and by us in the Government.
That is why amendment (a), which I propose to return to the other place in lieu of Lords amendment 97, will ensure that neighbourhood plans are fully taken into account. It will introduce into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a requirement for local planning authorities to identify, in their reports to planning committees, how the neighbourhood plan was taken into account in making a recommendation to grant planning permission. They will also be required to identify in the report any points of conflict between their recommendation and the neighbourhood plan. This will ensure absolute transparency in the decision-making process and that the balance of considerations is made clear.

Anne Marie Morris: The Minister makes an extremely good point. I am pleased that he is introducing such a new clause. However, my concern is that it does not really go far enough. The only redress is to call in the decision, which means that it will not made by the community, which the Minister has said we should trust. I am very pleased that he is going as far as he is, but if he believes in trusting the community, the original Lords amendment is a much better way to go.

Brandon Lewis: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard and has made her case strongly in the House. However, if a neighbourhood plan is in place, we must trust our elected representatives, who are locally accountable through the local authority, to make the right decisions for their area—ultimately, they are accountable to their area—and to make sure that their decisions are in line with the neighbourhood plan. We intend to make sure that that process is entirely transparent. I should also make it very clear to the House that when we looked at what is happening at the moment, we found that decisions made by local authorities are in line with neighbourhood plans.

Scott Mann: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I know he is pressed for time. My issue is not with the local community, but with the planning inspector. May I, in the very strongest terms, ask the  Minister to put a rocket up the planning inspectors in order to support local democracy? When neighbourhood plans are voted through in a referendum, they should be respected.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can assure him that I have very recently written to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate, and I know that that letter is very clearly in the front of the mind, on the database and under the nose of all planning inspectors, so they are clear that we believe neighbourhood plans should be respected. The amendment (a) that we have tabled will take that even further, but I will continue to work with colleagues to look at how we can go further to ensure that neighbourhood plans get the robust support and programme that they need in the period ahead.

Kit Malthouse: The Minister is making a powerful point. Last week, he very kindly made that point to three of my constituents from Overton, Whitchurch and Oakley, all of which have neighbourhood plans in place. Does he agree that although greater protection for neighbourhood plans would be very welcome, one of the key building blocks is the five-year land supply? What consideration is he giving to allowing councils greater power to protect their five-year land supply from challenges from developers, so that that can cascade down into greater certainty for neighbourhood plans?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the importance of making sure that five-year land supplies are in place, that we are delivering the housing we need and that developers get the message loud and clear that neighbourhood plans will be respected by local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Government.

William Wragg: Notwithstanding the very welcome amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 97, can the Minister give the House any indication that he is prepared to countenance alternative future measures that might go some way to meeting the Lords amendment?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has joined colleagues in making clear that they want us to look at how we can go further to make sure that neighbourhood plans have precedence and that everybody is very clear about central Government’s view that neighbourhood plans should guide planning. I will reflect on that and work with colleagues in the period ahead. We are determined to make sure that the message is that neighbourhood plans are the way for communities to come together, that the time they spend together will be valuable in giving them control and power over planning and that that will have weight in law. I am very happy to continue to do that.

Martin Vickers: The Minister is making a good case for neighbourhood plans, although I am personally more sympathetic to the amendment, as he well knows from the ten-minute rule Bill I proposed on the subject last year. Does he accept that communities find it difficult to get the resources together to produce a neighbourhood plan and will he consider what additional help might be forthcoming?

Brandon Lewis: I am happy to outline that there is additional help out there. We give money to local areas to do their neighbourhood plans, and to local authorities to support them in that work. We will continue to do that. I am always looking at more ways not just of promoting plans but of making sure that communities have the support that they need, from a wide network, including templates and other work.
We are tight on time, so I will move on. As I said earlier, the Government have listened. Permission in principle is a good example. Thanks to Lords amendment 100 the Bill now states explicitly that permission in principle can be granted only for housing-led development. We are happy to accept that amendment.
We are somewhat unconvinced, however, by amendment 108. It would increase the construction costs for home builders by an average of more than £3,000 on a semi-detached home, and place a regulatory burden of around £200 million a year on the industry. That will have an impact on all home builders—not just the big companies, but the small and medium-sized companies that we are looking to drive and help grow across England. We cannot accept the amendment. It would tip the balance, driving some small home builders out of the industry altogether and making housing development unviable in some areas. We already build some of the most energy-efficient homes in the world as a result of the tough building regulation standards we set in the last Parliament. In fact, there has been a 30% improvement on the standards before 2010, reducing energy bills by around £200 annually.

Tom Brake: Has the Minister attempted to calculate what homeowners would save each year in energy costs if the Government were to go for the enhanced standard?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the point I have just made about how we have reduced energy bills with that 30% improvement. We must balance that with the fact that a £3,000 increase in the cost of building a semi-detached home will lead to at least that increase—potentially even more—in the cost of buying one. That will not help home builders, and could slow down house building and make it harder for small businesses to come into the sector.

Rebecca Pow: Will the Minister assure us that he has given due consideration to our climate change commitments, as energy efficiency in homes really contributes to those?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why we are so proud of the work that we have done on energy-efficient homes since 2010, raising those standards. But we have to be very clear on certain policy ideas. For example, the reason why we have said no to the reintroduction of zero-carbon homes has been well summed up by the Federation of Master Builders, which represents many of the small builders that we all want to see more of. It said that that policy
“threatened to perpetuate the housing crisis.”
This House should return any amendment that would do that.
Likewise, there are serious and fundamental reasons why amendment 110 is unworkable. I know many of us appreciate how important this issue is, so I will go through  why for a few moments. Flood risk is an incredibly important issue, and I fully understand, sympathise with and share the strength of feeling on it. The Government are committed to ensuring that development is safe from flooding, and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems is part of our planning policy, which was strengthened just over one year ago.
Our planning policy and guidance are clear that local councils must consider strict tests that protect people and property from flooding, and that development should not be allowed where those tests are not met. Our approach to avoiding flood risk applies to all sources of flooding, including from surface water and from overloaded sewers and drainage systems, and it sets clear expectations for the use of sustainable drainage.

Rebecca Harris: I very much welcome what the Minister is saying. He will be aware of the problems we have had in Castle Point with surface water drainage, so I am grateful for his guidance to planning authorities. Does he agree that not incorporating Lords amendment 110 will mean that superb companies such as Anglian Water will struggle to deal not just with historical problems but with potential future problems, which could place a heavy burden on bill payers?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point; indeed, I appreciate the intention behind Lords amendment 110. The Government are doing some work on this, and are reviewing how the new policy is working.

Rebecca Pow: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I will make a little progress, but I will take more interventions later.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Members want to get in, but they will not get in if they keep intervening. They have to choose which they want to do, and I will choose the ones who are not intervening.

Brandon Lewis: Lords amendment 110 seeks to remove an automatic right to connect to the public sewer for surface water, unless a sustainable drainage system forms part of a development and is constructed in accordance with non-statutory technical standards and the planning permission. However, the proposed new clause, as currently drafted, is unnecessary and unworkable. First, it makes the right to connect conditional on complying with the terms of a planning permission that may not actually provide for such a drainage system. That might be because it is not viable or because there are on-site constraints.
Secondly, the new clause presumes that a process exists that determines whether or not a development is permitted to connect to the public sewer, where there is none. Thirdly, making the right to connect conditional on planning permission leaves open a number of issues, including what happens when connections are needed and where there is currently no requirement for planning permission to be obtained at all. That might include situations where water sewerage companies are exercising their statutory obligations to drain an area effectively.
Finally, the new clause, which would increase red tape and barriers to development, has no transitional arrangements and industry, especially smaller house  builders, will struggle to respond without time to prepare, leading to delays in house building.

Anne Marie Morris: The Minister is being generous in giving way. I understand his concerns about the current proposal, but he assumes that the authorities will determine that the drainage and infrastructure in place are adequate. I have a number of examples where, in my view and that of the community, that is not the case. If there was a way of appealing those decisions if they are not robust, to say that the draining infrastructure was not appropriate, I would feel much happier with what he is saying.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, but I say again that one of the problems with the proposed new clause is that, as currently drafted, there would sometimes be an issue where there is actually no requirement for planning permission to be obtained in the first place.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the Minister for giving way. I was going to save this point and make a short speech, but I will make my point now. In my constituency of Taunton Deane flooding is a massive issue, and of course the incorporation of SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—would help with wider catchment management, which in future we are all going to have to address, so would it not be sensible to think about doing it now? I do understand his concerns about discouraging house building, because I know that we have to build all these houses.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend make a very good point, as have other colleagues across the Chamber this evening. I am very sympathetic to the points they have raised, which is why we are looking through this review to see how the current system is working, bearing in mind that it came in only a year ago and that it will be reporting back.
There is a theme emerging. I am proposing that this House should disagree with amendments that would increase burdens on house builders, would be unworkable for those building new homes and, like those in the previous group of amendments, would effectively slow the pace at which they can deliver them. That is also why the Government disagree with Lords amendment 109, which seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from using a power in relation to small sites and also in rural areas.
I want to make it clear that we are happy to work with the other place and to address the issues it raises about rural areas through regulations. Regulations will make clear those rural areas where restrictions will not apply. Working with the other place will also allow us to consider how other rural areas can seek exclusion from any restrictions.
Finally, I have read the Hansard reports of the proceedings in the other place, and on many occasions I stood at the Bar to watch them myself. I have missed standing here over the past few weeks talking about the Bill. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could talk much longer about the Bill, but I will not be tempted to do so this evening. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) tempts me to speak further. I hope that this House will accept my earlier argument. The motions that stand in the name of my  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to agree with the other place mean that homes will be delivered faster as a result, the planning system will run smoother and the way we manage and deliver housing will be faster and fairer.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The first thing I want to say about the planning section of the Bill is that it is a pity that it has not had more resonance in the public realm, because it is bringing about far-reaching changes to the planning system that many local communities should be concerned about. Two issues that I will highlight are the extensive use of permission in principle on brownfield sites and the contracting out of planning services to private providers. Both risk drastically reducing the say that local communities have over what is built in their area and are a further nail in the coffin of the Government’s localist credentials.
I will begin with those Lords amendments that the Government are opposing or seeking to amend. Introducing Lords amendment 97, which provides for a neighbourhood right of appeal against an application for planning permission, Lord Kennedy said in the other place:
“It is right that communities have a direct say in developments in their area, and the amendment provides a mechanism for a limited right of appeal in certain circumstances. The right of appeal would apply only to parish councils and neighbourhood forums whose plans progress to formal submission to the local authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 661.]
We accept that the Government have come forward with an amendment that seeks to make clear how the plan will be taken into account in making a planning recommendation and identifying points of conflict, and we can see where the Minister is coming from, but we are not sure it gives the protections that hon. Members are seeking, so we will have to monitor the situation in due course.
Lords amendment 108, tabled by Lord Kennedy, Lord Young and Baroness Parminter, aims to ensure that new homes contribute to meeting our greenhouse gas targets and help to lower fuel bills by requiring that new homes built from 1 April 2018 achieve the carbon compliance standard. In opposing this amendment, the Government argued that the amendment imposed a regulatory burden, but these standards, withdrawn by the Chancellor last year, had industry-wide support. If the Government’s priority is to support small house builders, it should be noted that they themselves cite that the major constraints on their building more homes are land prices and access to finance, not building carbon-neutral homes.
That was the evidence given last October to the House of Lords Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment by representatives from both the Home Builders Federation and the Federation of Master Builders. Their evidence completely contradicts the Minister’s point. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has also added its voice to the call for a reinstatement of the zero-carbon homes policy. Higher regulatory standards should be considered not as burdensome red tape but as a requirement that is essential both to reducing energy costs and to tackling the threat of climate change.
The zero-carbon homes standard is important to delivering on our climate change commitments. The cost of building to standards is reducing all the time and is now probably only about £1,500, not the £3,500 the Minister mentioned. Introducing the standard would result in homes that have lower energy bills and reduced carbon emissions. Given that Labour introduced the zero-carbon homes policy for homes built after 2016, which was disgracefully stopped by the previous Government, we will support the Lords in their amendment to bring back carbon compliance measures from 2018.
Given all the flooding we have had in this country recently, it is very strange that the Government are seeking to vote against amendment 110, which would require that 1 million new homes be built with sustainable drainage systems, helping to protect homeowners against flooding and delivering wider environmental benefits. Almost every environmental organisation and organisation concerned with flooding supports the amendment, from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust to Water UK, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Angling Trust, the Rivers Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I could go on.
New developments will put new pressure on critical infrastructure, including drainage and flood defence. New homes continue to be built in areas of flood risk without resilience measures, such as SUDS, and many conventional drainage systems are already over capacity. In many cases, capital costs for sustainable drainage will be lower than conventional connections, as recognised in the 2010 impact assessment by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We also know that retrofitting is considerably more costly. The amendment would offer considerable protections against damage from flooding in the long term, and I do not think the Minister justified why he was voting against the amendment. I ask him to have a rethink.
We consider Lords amendment 111 to be a good one, because it seeks to limit to five years the time during which the pilot to test the privatisation of the processing of planning applications can run. We appreciate that the intent is to limit the policy, but we do not agree with the policy at all, because we believe it could lead to extremely difficult conflicts of interest at the local level and would take away much-needed resources from local planning departments.
Let me deal briefly with some of the Government amendments. Government amendments 98 and 99 would amend clause 129 to ensure that the Secretary of State, or the Mayor in the case of London, could prepare a local development scheme that sets out the development plan documents that the authority intends to produce and the timetable for their production for an authority that has failed to prepare one, and then direct the authority to bring the scheme forward. In effect, this means placing a requirement on authorities to have a local plan in place and it is what Labour proposed in the Lyons report, so it is good to see that the Government have taken our proposals on board.
Amendments 100 to 106 relate to clarifications on permission in principle, and the time limits are welcome. I must commend Baroness Andrews for all her work in the other place; it is also good that the Government accepted Lord Beecham’s amendment on developments  on brownfield sites being housing-led, but we still have huge reservations as to whether this whole policy of permission in principle will bring forward more land, more quickly.
It is particularly good to see in amendments 240 to 243 that the Government have accepted what Labour argued for both in Commons Committee and in the other place—that where they consider it expedient to do so, it would be possible in principle for local planning authorities to revoke or modify permission granted by local plans or registers. We look forward to seeing the regulations that will accompany this, but we wonder why the Minister did not agree to this in Committee—still, better late than never!
Similarly, we accept amendments 124 and 127, which simplify the process for setting up new town corporations and urban development corporations. Again, this is something we argued for in Committee, and we would like to see an updated version of new towns legislation as soon as possible to deliver the garden cities and villages our country needs.
Lastly, we accept that amendments 128 to 179 clarify changes to the compulsory purchase orders process. We will monitor these in practice to see if they do enable a speeding up and a wider use of CPOs to help local authorities to deliver the additional housing that our country desperately needs.

Peter Aldous: I shall speak briefly to Lords amendments 108 on carbon compliance for new homes and 110 on sustainable drainage systems. Both have considerable merit, and I would be inclined to support them both if the Government were not already committed to reviews on both matters. It is best to bring in such measures after full consideration of all the evidence, having weighed up and carefully assessed the pros and cons.
An understandable concern with both amendments is that they might have a disproportionate negative impact on smaller buildings. While there is a concern that a carbon compliance standard is an additional regulatory burden that could add to building costs, evidence shows that such a target incentivises innovation, leading to cost reductions and the achievement of its objective of increasing energy efficiency in new buildings.
On sustainable urban drainage systems, I have in mind my own Waveney constituency. As in many places, much new housing is proposed there in the next few years, and it saw devastating flooding of homes last year, caused partially by large new developments that did not have sustainable drainage systems.
I find it significant that Anglian Water, the statutory drainage authority for the area, is backing this amendment. It pointed to the following merits: a reduction in occurrences of surface water flooding; a reduction in the £2 billion cost of flood damage in England each year; the creation of additional drainage capacity that will help to deliver more new homes; lower bills to customers, as SUDS are cheaper than conventional drainage systems; and bringing the system in England in line with the rest of the UK.
I welcome the Government’s reviews of those two issues. The reviews should be wide-ranging, should be conducted in a timely fashion—both should certainly be completed by this time next year—and should be subject to full debate and scrutiny in the House and its Committees.

Clive Betts: I want to say a little about the “alternative provider” clauses and the relevant Lords amendment, which I understand that the Government will be accepting.
I continue to be concerned about what I consider to be a most peculiar form of privatisation. Normally, in cases of privatisation, the council is able to choose the companies or organisations that will provide the service and put that service out to tender. In this case—very peculiarly—the applicant will decide who will conduct the process on behalf of the council and eventually, presumably, supply information and advice to the planning committee. In other words, the council which is ultimately responsible for making the decision—and that, I think, is what the Lords amendments further clarify—will have no role in deciding which organisation will be involved in the process of working with the applicant to decide, eventually, what the recommendation on the application is to be.
There seems to be an idea that suddenly, at the end of the day, a recommendation comes out of thin air. It does not; it results from a very detailed process involving a major application, in which a planning officer and an applicant work through all the details of the scheme. The Bill, however, proposes that that should be done by an alternative provider appointed by the applicant. I think that that is a very strange process, and one that is difficult to justify.
There is also a potential conflict of interests. The alternative provider in one council who advises the planning authority about a scheme could also be a consultant operating directly on behalf of someone in another authority making a very similar application in relation to a very similar scheme, and being paid for doing so. We should be very aware of that possible conflict of interests.
The Lords amendments clearly state that the council—the planning authority—is ultimately responsible for making the decision, and nothing that the alternative provider does should bind the council. I want to know whether, in the context of the pilots, the Minister intends the alternative provider to do all the work and make the recommendation to the planning committee, or whether the alternative provider will make information available to council officers who will independently make a recommendation to the planning committee. I think that that is incredibly important. Will a councillor who receives an application and a recommendation receive the recommendation from a council officer who is independent, on the basis of advice from the alternative provider, or receive it directly from the alternative provider who is appointed by the applicant? That is a fundamental point, which has not been clarified even by the Lords amendments.

Stuart Andrew: I want to speak briefly about Lords amendment 97. The issue of planning has been at the forefront of the minds of people in my constituency. I have often said in the past that my constituents felt that planning was something that happened to them rather than something in which they could become involved. I therefore welcome the move towards neighbourhood plans.
Much of this has come about because we have had masses of development on old brownfield sites. That is, of course, a good use of such sites, but we now face the prospect of having to build 70,000 homes over the next  14 years, as that is the target that the city council has set itself. There is a great deal of concern in the constituency that we are going to have to release green-belt land to match that demand.
This has galvanised a lot of local action, and I pay tribute to those involved in the Aireborough neighbourhood development forum and in the Rawdon and Horsforth parish councils who are now working hard to develop local neighbourhood plans. However, their experience in the past has been that the city council can turn down an application on very good grounds, only for it to go to an inspector who will turn it around. Those people want to feel that they have all the necessary support and tools at their disposal to defend their neighbourhood plans. They feel that this is far too often a one-way process.
I understand what the Minister has said about this, and I am grateful to him for the time he has taken to speak to me personally, as well as to other colleagues, about this. I welcome the fact that he is sympathetic to the idea that those groups should have a right to appeal, and I hope that he will work with all of us to see what can be done to give them the confidence that they want. Those parish councillors should be allowed to defend the neighbourhood plans that they have drawn up. Many of them are volunteers, and they have spent a considerable amount of time developing first-rate plans. They want to have confidence that the system will support what they have drawn up rather than working against them. I hope that the Minister will look into that. I hope that he will also ensure that emerging neighbourhood plans will have equal weight with those that have already been adopted.

Helen Hayes: I welcome the Lords amendments that introduce exemptions from permission in principle and clarify the qualifying documents under which permission in principle can be granted. I also welcome the amendments that will allow permission in principle to be overturned on the basis of new information, such as archaeological remains being discovered on a site. I argued for this in the Public Bill Committee.
I am concerned, however, that too many aspects of technical details consent are being left to be set out in regulations. Technical details could include the height or density of a development, open space provisions, design, layout and many other considerations. I maintain, as I did in Committee, that while those details can be informed by technical studies, their substance can often make a fundamental difference to how communities feel about a planning proposal. They are therefore often far closer to matters of principle than the description “technical details” implies. I had hoped that, by this stage, we might have seen some of that detail being set out in the Bill.
I am also concerned by the ability that will be introduced in this legislation to appoint third parties to assess planning applications. This will remove democratic accountability from the assessment of the applications. I welcome the fact that the Government have clarified that councils will be the final decision makers, but important judgments are made during the assessment process, which involves a substantial amount of work. Councils would effectively have to repeat that process to  enable proper scrutiny or to unravel that work. A far better solution would be to allow councils to recover the full cost of the development management process from planning application fees, so that they could be properly resourced to carry out this democratic role with full democratic scrutiny and accountability.
Fundamentally, the planning aspects of the Housing and Planning Bill miss the opportunity to set out a positive vision for planning, to engage and involve communities in solving the housing crisis, to strengthen our plan-led system, which is highly valued and highly regarded across the world, and to give communities and homebuilders the certainty they need as we face an unprecedented need to build new homes in this country.

Antoinette Sandbach: I know that the Minister is aware of my constituents’ feelings in the light of an avalanche of applications by developers against adopted neighbourhood plans and an avalanche of objections by developers to emerging neighbourhood plans. I have seen this in Tarporley, in Moulton and in Davenham. My constituents describe themselves as being under siege. In the light of the debate that we have had today, particularly on clause 97, I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to review the planning legislation so that we can have some certainty about the interplay between neighbourhood plans and local plans and provide stronger protections for residents such as mine in Eddisbury. My constituents have put time and effort into creating robust neighbourhood plans that have been passed by inspectors, but they now feel as though they are under siege. We need a full review of the planning process if we are to strengthen local democracy and achieve the localism that everyone in Eddisbury so desperately wants.

Tom Brake: I want to spend a couple of minutes on two amendments. I am disappointed by what the Minister had to say about amendment 108, which he said would cost homebuilders some £3,000. We heard from the Labour Front Bench team that it might be as little as £1,500, and as builders get used to building homes to high emissions standards, I suspect that the cost will fall further in years to come. Over the lifetime of a property, the savings to its owners will be significant and much greater than £3,000—if that even is the figure. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister is not willing to support amendment 108.
The Minister said that amendment 110, which I will be pressing to a vote, was faulty, but it was not clear whether he was saying that it was defective. If that is the case, the Minister could have amended it in a way that was acceptable to him to ensure that it was not faulty. He has heard the long list of organisations, including the water industry, community groups, and a range of water management experts, that feel that the current arrangements for sustainable drainage systems are inadequate and unsatisfactory. Amendment 110 would ensure that developers provided SUDS to reduce the pressure on existing systems, which we know from the flooding up and down the country cannot cope with current levels of water.
If there is a vote on amendment 108 this evening, I will certainly support it. I will also press amendment 110 to a vote.

Rebecca Pow: I know that we are tight for time. I listened with much interest to what the Minister said about sustainable drainage systems, and I urge him to ensure that the best possible use is made of devices to protect people’s land and to manage surface water, regardless of the size of the development. Having witnessed the consequences of the terrible flooding in Taunton Deane in 2013-14, I am conscious that we must harness every tool in the box to deal with flooding. According to the Met Office, an awful lot more water is coming our way, so we have to be ready.
I am also conscious that Taunton Deane, much like other parts of the country, has seen a massive, rapid increase in house building, which I applaud, because we do need it. I fully support the Government’s proactive house building plan, but I call on the Minister to give due consideration to the water run-off from new houses so that that does not add to the flooding risk. Developers are currently encouraged to install SUDS, but they retain the legal right just to connect new properties directly to the sewerage system, which probably makes more economic sense in many cases. Lords amendment 110 has much support, including from water companies, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, and the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change.
In Somerset and elsewhere, we are required to consider a wider catchment approach to how we address water management and flood prevention. The use of the SUDS will inevitably play its part as time goes on. Both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee are conducting inquiries into flooding and water management. We await their conclusions with interest, and they will no doubt have many useful things to say. We, as a population, will have to look seriously at holding more water on our land to control the rate at which it rushes into rivers and the rest of the water system.
The Minister has spent a lot of time on this important issue and has considered Lords amendment 110 in detail. I listened to his reasons for not including it in the Bill right now, but I would welcome any future deliberations and review. I would be most willing to work with him on the matter to bring forward the best possible outcomes and to ensure that we encourage our house building programme without exacerbating the risk of flooding or causing unnecessary environmental degradation.

Anne Marie Morris: rose—

John Bercow: If Anne Marie Morris orates briefly, she might almost allow the Minister, with leave of the House, a couple of minutes to reply, although she is not obliged to do so. In this case she has some power over the Minister, but she may only have it once.

Anne Marie Morris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will keep my comments brief.
As the Minister knows, I have campaigned for a community right of appeal for many years, and it is now time to consider that issue seriously as there is more and more support for it across the House. The Minister said that the original right of appeal was introduced to redress the balance in favour of the landowner, who was effectively having his freedom taken away. I suggest that the time has come to redress the balance in favour of  communities that, in the words of many, are now having development thrust upon them. I hope that the Minister will consider this issue, as it is perfectly possible to introduce a community right of appeal. That is not the same thing as a third-party right of appeal, and I am sure that he could come up with something that would work and not stop the building programme.
In defending his position, the Minister said that the community has a voice through the local authority. I understand where he is coming from, but electing a local authority once every four years is not the same as giving local communities a voice in planning decisions that affect them. It is now time to look seriously at giving the community a real sense of democratic responsibility and accountability. The Minister relies on the local authority to be the arbiter, but in many cases—certainly in my constituency—the local authority is conflicted, and an obligation to write a report will not solve the problem. One of the biggest issues—the Minister knows this, because I have spoken regularly to him about it—concerns infrastructure decisions, because at the moment there is no right of redress if the local authority gets something wrong. That is one of the most significant issues on my desk today.
I understand why the Minister wants to reject the proposal on SUDS, but in my south-west constituency, flooding has been a chronic issue. This is about proper funding as well as planning, and about ensuring that those who make infrastructure decisions understand the issues and are held to account. I cannot think of anybody better to do that than the community.

Brandon Lewis: The debate has summed up just how important the planning system is to many of those who write to us, or who come to see us in our surgeries every week. My hon. Friends have spoken passionately and clearly about the importance of empowering local communities, and all those in my Department who have responsibility for planning understand how deeply a decision about where a new development should go affects those who live or work nearby.
Good planning is about more than just buildings. It is more than just maps, numbers, assessments and forms, and more than calculations about housing need and the ability of our vibrant high streets to deliver local growth. Good planning is about people, and we have heard good things said by good people this evening. Good planning is about seeing past documents and planning applications, and being able to judge the impact of the changing nature of our places on the families and communities that grow up there.
That is why, as my hon. Friends have rightly outlined, neighbourhood planning is so important. It is the future of a community being agreed and designed by that community, and such work must be respected. It is about local people deciding where their children will live when they grow up and leave home. It is about local decisions that affect the future of our schools and our shops. That is why it is so effective and empowering—the ultimate localism. Local support for house building has doubled in the past four years, while opposition to local house building has more than halved. We have empowered more than 1,800 communities to start the process of neighbourhood planning, which we introduced in 2012, and nearly 10 million people in 72% of local authorities are now represented. On average, 89% of people voted yes in their neighbourhood plan referendum.
We are seeing that engagement with the planning system leads to undeniably positive results, which is why I am so passionate about getting right our reforms and our delivery of neighbourhood planning. It is reassuring to hear so many colleagues making their case so passionately to ensure that the voice of their local community is heard and properly represented in the planning system, as that is exactly what neighbourhood planning is about. There is no point in building expectation into the planning system if we then to slow it down with red tape and extra bureaucracy. There is no point in getting local authorities to engage properly with local communities if we then prevent building with other red tape and regulations. That is why we have made our points in the debate about drainage and energy-efficiency. It is important that we get this right, that we do the work to get this right, and that we listen to what colleagues have said to make sure that we do just that in the period ahead. We are here to deliver the housing that our country needs.
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.
Question agreed to.
Lords amendment 97 accordingly disagreed to.
The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F.)
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 97.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 111.
Lords amendment 111, as amended, agreed to.
After Clause 143
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 108.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.
The House divided:
Ayes 286, Noes 163.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England:Ayes 277, Noes 149.

The House having divided: Ayes 286, Noes 163.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 108 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 109 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 110.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.
The House divided:
Ayes 285, Noes 164.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales:Ayes 285, Noes 161.

The House having divided: Ayes 285, Noes 164.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 110 disagreed to.

John Bercow: I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining Lords amendments. First, under the Standing Order, I must put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that relate exclusively to England.
Lords amendments 100, 98, 99, 101 to 107, 112 to 127 and 240 to 243 agreed to.

John Bercow: I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that relate exclusively to England and Wales.
Lords amendments 128 to 179 and 244 to 282 agreed to.

John Bercow: I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that have not been certified.
Lords amendments 180, 181, 189 and 192 to 194 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 37, 47, 54, 55, 57, 58 and 108 to 110;
That Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, Andrew Griffiths, Brandon Lewis, Seema Kennedy, Grahame M. Morris and Julian Smith be members of the Committee;
That Brandon Lewis be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Julian Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.—(Kris Hopkins.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Licences and Licensing

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Her Majesty The Queen’s Birthday Licensing Hours) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 12 April, be approved.—(Kris Hopkins.)
Question agreed to.

John Bercow: We come now to the petition—

Kris Hopkins: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of himself. What a fast-thinking denizen of the House the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), is. Why should I expect otherwise from a cerebral Whip?

PETITION - CLOSURE OF GARFORTH CLINIC

Alec Shelbrooke: I rise to present a petition relating to the closure of Garforth clinic. I have more than 1,000 signatures from my local community, who believe that the Leeds community healthcare NHS trust decision to close the clinic has not been properly thought through.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Elmet and Rothwell,
Declares that the decision of the Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust to close Garforth Clinic removes ease of access to local health services for elderly and disabled patients; further that it removes podiatry, adult dietetics, children’s speech and language therapy, psychological therapies, musculo-skeletal, cardiac and weight management services from Garforth; further that it removes access to a local warfarin clinic for those without personal transportation; further that it highlights a failure to comply with statutory functions of an NHS Trust; further that the Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust has failed to identify a sustainable alternative or detail how neighbouring health centres will cope with increased demand; further that the Trust has failed to reference pressure from Leeds City Council’s Core Strategy, which plans to build thousands of additional dwellings around the  town; and further that the Trust withdrew from a pre-arranged public meeting with our Member of Parliament and City Councillors at which residents were hoping to explain their personal concerns over the removal of local health services.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to encourage the independent Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust to review its decision to close Garforth Clinic; arrange a meeting with residents to answer concerns; and re-consult with patients on the impact that such a closure will have.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001687]

LETTING AGENT FEES AND DEPOSITS: PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins.)

Maria Caulfield: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to secure this debate. Tonight, I want to highlight the emerging scandal of letting agent fees. Those are fees charged by letting agents when a tenant takes on a new tenancy, on top of any deposit that needs to be paid to secure a property and in addition to the monthly rent that needs to be paid in advance. In London and the south-east, letting agent fees have rocketed over the last two years as competition for rental properties has grown. Not only has the amount charged by letting agents increased, but there has been an increase in the types of fees charged.
There seems to be a particular problem in London, where competition in the private rented sector is fiercest, but the problem is also now affecting many parts of the south-east, including my own constituency of Lewes. My constituency is only 58.2 miles from London and, despite the poor rail service, which has been the subject of previous Adjournment debates, is still very commutable. After being priced out of the London housing market, many people move to the south coast, so competition for rental properties has soared in my constituency during the past 18 months, and letting agents have put up their fees accordingly.
At this point, I should declare that I am a patron of a local housing charity, Homelink, in Lewes. It provides financial assistance to people struggling to secure a deposit for a home to rent. Homelink has seen a significant increase in local letting agent fees during the past 18 months. As a result, it is having to provide local families with financial support for the fees, as well as help for the deposit. In 2015, Homelink provided over £101,000 in financial assistance to local people to help them to secure a home. Despite that, Homelink has seen key workers, those on a low income and young people priced out of the local property market not because they could not afford the rent, but because they could not afford the fees and the deposit required up front.
To investigate the extent of the problem of lettings agent fees, my local citizens advice bureaux in Seaford and Lewes researched those fees across the constituency. They found that the fees can range from £175 to £922. Such fees are in addition to the average six-week rent deposit required—it is rapidly becoming an eight-week rent deposit—and the month’s rent needed in advance. Using the rent calculator provided by the charity Shelter, which is available on its website, a new tenant wanting to rent a two-bedroom property in Lewes, where the average rent is £1,200 a month, would need to stump up in advance anything from £3,032 to £3,779, depending on the lettings fees charged. Realistically, how many of us could afford that?
The research from the citizens advice bureaux goes further, and makes fascinating reading. They have found that not only do fees vary from £175 to just under £1,000, but that such variations can be found by letting agents on the same high street, with the big national letting agents tending to charge the most, while the small independent agents charge the least. Moreover,  the type of fees that a letting agent charges varies greatly. Letting agents often charge a holding fee of about £200 to secure a property.

Alex Chalk: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is not just the size of the charges, which can be great, but the lack of transparency? They are often levied on the basis of a pretext that is completely unclear and completely unjustified.

Maria Caulfield: I completely agree. I will come on to that specific point in a moment.
The holding fee of about £200 does not always secure a property and is not always refundable. A credit check can amount to about £100. All letting agents charge for drawing up a tenancy agreement, but some charge more for other tenants on the agreement. One tenant who takes out a tenancy agreement may be charged up to £350, but a second tenant may be charged up to £450. Reference checks cost roughly £100, and admin costs usually amount to another £100 to cover phone calls and postage. Some letting agents are making a new charge for an express move. Someone wanting to move into a property within three days will have to pay an extra £100, while to do so within five days costs £50. Letting agents even charge people if they have a pet—this is separate from what the landlord requires—and often charge them £200 to bring a pet with them. If one of the young people in a group who are sharing a property moves out, the person who takes over the sharing arrangement can be charged £300 just to change the name of the sharer in the agreement.

Kevin Hollinrake: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this subject. There is clearly not a free market for tenants, who follow property rather than choose between letting agents because of fees, so it is an issue that we need to address. However, letting agents rely on these fees for income, and so that income would have to come from somewhere else; it could be added to rent or else come from higher fees for landlords. Agents may also choose to take the most secure tenants and prefer those with good credit histories, rather than take a risk on a tenant with an inferior credit history, because of the risk of having to do the work twice, which would add to their costs. There is a potential issue there, so should we consider a cap rather than abolition?

Maria Caulfield: I completely agree. That will be one of the recommendations I make to the Minister.
Research by the National Union of Students mirrored that undertaken by my local citizens advice bureaux. The NUS surveyed 3,000 students and found that, on average, students pay £887 in fees, going up to more than £1,000 if they rent from an agent online. That shows that the situation in my constituency is being replicated across the country.
There is still one more injustice that tenants have to endure on top, the six-month tenancy regime. Very often, tenants want a longer lease and landlords are happy to give them one. But it is in the letting agent’s interests to keep tenants on a rotating six-month tenancy, because every time that tenancy is renewed the agent charges another £150 to £350. It is a classic opportunity  to fleece tenants once again. The renewal of the same lease for the same tenants for the same property just costs the tenants more money. In law, a tenant should be able to ask for a longer lease from their landlord, but letting agents often ensure that that message is not passed on, and so every six months tenants have to pay fees to agents for little more than a new piece of paper.
To go back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), landlords are often none the wiser about the charges that their tenants face. In fact, landlords often pay no fees at all, because they benefit from letting agents who are keen to encourage them to sign their properties on to their books rather than those of another letting agent. The charges are therefore passed on to the tenant.
What do letting agents actually do to justify their fees? They do a great deal of work. A let-only deal will involve the letting agent assessing a property for rent, submitting the advert, carrying out viewings, doing tenant reference and credit checks, ensuring that tenants have contents insurance, providing tenancy agreements, setting up payments and informing utility companies of any changes. However, does that work really justify charging tenants just under £1,000?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does she appreciate, however, that estate agents are making around 40% of their income from lettings fees, so if we abolish or cap them, those costs will only be passed on to the tenant in a different way, principally through higher rents from the landlord? There are perhaps two answers. She has already alighted on one, which is to try to encourage—not mandate, but encourage—longer tenancies. Secondly, this House should be much more cautious in future about increasing the regulatory burden on landlords, so that letting agents do not have so many items to check off before they can get tenants into properties; I am thinking, for example, of the right to rent changes brought in recently, which put extra costs and burdens on landlords and letting agents.

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for his points. I am sure he will hear some of those suggestions in my recommendations.
The Government have done a tremendous amount to protect tenants and restrict over-exuberant letting agents. Last year, they made it illegal for agents to charge potential tenants to register with them or to charge for providing lists of properties. The Government also changed the law so that agents have to advertise their fees publicly in advance, both online and in their offices; non-compliance is enforceable by local trading standards officers, with a maximum fine of £5,000.
That change is very welcome, but in reality the law is not being followed. Again, my enthusiastic bunch of volunteers at the citizens advice bureaux did a form of mystery shopping locally. They visited 10 letting agents in Lewes and 15 in the town of Seaford. Of those 25, only one had its fees easily and publicly displayed. In practice, then, tenants are none the wiser that there is such a difference in fees between letting agents in the same town.
I therefore have five asks of the Government to ensure further protection for those who find themselves part of generation rent—very often those who cannot  afford to buy a property or get a mortgage. First, we should indeed cap letting agent fees, because there can be no justification for the difference in the fees currently charged. Secondly, we should set standards for what can and cannot be charged for. For example, is it right that tenants are charged a holding fee that does not actually hold the property they want and that is not refundable? Thirdly, we should end the practice of charging for tenancy renewal, or at least give greater protection to tenants on short-term lets.

Caroline Ansell: Does my hon. Friend agree that short-term lets of six months are not only hugely costly to tenants in what should be a straightforward renewal—there should also be much more openness about the possibility of having a longer tenancy agreement—but undermine people’s sense of security and their connection to their community?

Maria Caulfield: I agree with my hon. Friend, because tenants have a legal right to ask for longer tenancy agreements, but often that request is not passed on to their landlords.
Fourthly, there should be tougher penalties for not displaying fees, because that is clearly being flouted. I urge that councils should be allowed to keep the money from any fines to encourage them to enforce the law that already exists. Fifthly, we should promote this issue so that tenants are aware that there is a difference between the fees that are charged, often on the same high street for the same properties. I have written about that in my monthly column in the Sussex Express in order to highlight the issue so that tenants are aware and can then make choices for themselves.
In conclusion, letting agent fees have the greatest impact on the young, the poor and those excluded from the housing market. Many letting agents know that these people are desperate to secure somewhere to live and take full advantage by charging exorbitant fees. There is huge competition for housing, particularly in London and the south-east, and if someone refuses to pay these fees there are three or four people behind them in the queue who will. I urge the Government to step in and protect tenants from the scourge of letting agent fees.

Marcus Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) for securing this debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss letting agent fees and tenants’ deposits in the private rented sector. The Government are committed to promoting a strong and thriving professional rented sector where good landlords can prosper and hard-working tenants can enjoy decent standards and receive a service that represents value for money for their rent. The vast majority of landlords provide a good service and rent out good-quality, well-managed properties. We know from the English housing survey that 84% of tenants are satisfied with their accommodation and that, on average, tenants stay in a property for four years.
The private rented sector is expanding and is now a major part of the country’s housing stock, providing homes for over 4 million households. We want to see professional buy-to-let and institutional landlords and high-quality and professional letting agents who provide value for money for tenants. We have therefore introduced a range of measures to help drive up standards and improve the quality and management of privately rented housing.
Since 2014, all letting agents and property managers have been required to belong to one of three Government-approved redress schemes, with a penalty of up to £5,000 for those who fail to comply. Where standards do not meet expectations, both tenants and landlords now have an effective and transparent means of raising their concerns. This offers a clear route for both landlords and tenants to pursue complaints by weeding out the cowboys who give agents a bad name, and at the same time we hope to drive up standards for tenants.
Since 2015, letting agents and property managers have also been required to display a full tariff of their fees prominently in their offices and on their websites, and to make clear whether or not they belong to a client money protection scheme, with a fine of up to £5,000 if they fail to comply.
We have introduced legislation, through the Deregulation Act 2015, that prevents landlords and letting agents from evicting a tenant simply for making a legitimate complaint about the condition of the property. They have also been prevented from serving open-ended eviction notices at the start of a tenancy, helping to improve tenant security, which I hope my hon. Friend will agree is an extremely important move. We have also made £12 million available to a number of local authorities to help them crack down on rogue landlords and drive them out of the sector. Results have been impressive, with over 40,000 properties inspected and legal action taken against more than 3,000 landlords to date.
And we are going further. Through the Housing and Planning Bill, we are introducing a package of measures that will enable local authorities to do more to improve standards in the sector and ensure that rogue landlords either are forced to improve or leave the sector. Civil penalties of up to £30,000, which the local authority can retain and use for housing and enforcement purposes, will be levied in the most difficult cases, while a database of rogue landlords and letting agents will allow councils across the country to keep landlords and letting agents convicted of criminal offences firmly on their radar and a target for enforcement action.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government, through the Bill, are introducing banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders. The measures will also require the repayment of rent where a landlord has illegally evicted a tenant, failed to rectify a potentially serious health or safety hazard or breached a banning order. There will also be a tougher “fit and proper person” test to help ensure that rogue landlords and letting agents are properly vetted before they can manage licensed properties.
The Government are committed to ensuring that where a tenant pays a deposit to their landlord, it will be returned at the end of the tenancy, provided the tenant has complied with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Where a deposit is paid in conjunction with an assured shorthold tenancy, it must be protected by the landlord  or agent in one of the Government-approved schemes, and certain information must be sent to the tenant within 30 days of the deposit being received. If a landlord fails to do so, the tenant can initiate legal action and the landlord may have to pay the tenant up to three times the amount of the deposit paid. Tenancy deposit schemes in England have protected over 11.5 million deposits since their launch in 2007 and helped to raise standards in the private rented sector and ensure that tenants are treated fairly at the end of a tenancy.
I am clear that the vast majority of letting agents provide a good service to tenants and landlords and that most fees charged reflect genuine business costs. I do not believe, therefore, that a blanket ban or cap on letting agent fees is the answer to tackling the small minority of rogue letting agents who exploit their customers by imposing inflated fees for their services. Banning or capping letting agent fees would not make renting any cheaper for tenants—tenants would still end up paying but through higher rents—which is why the Government believe that ensuring full transparency is the best approach. This can be done by requiring letting agents to publicise a full tariff of their fees, giving consumers the information they want and supporting the majority of reputable letting agents. Such transparency will help to deter double charging by letting agents and enable both tenants and landlords to shop around, encouraging agents to offer competitive fees.
The evidence from Scotland, where letting agent fees have been banned, strongly suggests a direct relationship between a ban and higher rents. The Association of Residential Letting Agents commented that
“there was strong evidence of a negative fallout in Scotland...agents have gone out of business, some have raised landlords’ fees, some have put up rents”.
In the first quarter after the introduction of the ban, rents in Edinburgh increased by more than 5% and in Aberdeen by over 6%. While a direct link between the abolition of fees and higher rents cannot be proved, these rises are significantly higher than inflation. By comparison, over the same period, the average rent increase across England was just 1%.
Moving on to deal with my hon. Friend’s specific questions, I have probably covered those she asked about the cap. Although we do not believe that a cap on  letting agent fees is the right answer, when the requirement on letting agents to publicise their fees was introduced in October 2015, we said that we would review how well the scheme was working after 12 months. I think that is a sensible approach, allowing the new system time to bed in and to demonstrate that it is delivering the expected benefits.
I cannot pre-judge the review or its recommendations, but I am clear that we are not ruling anything out. If we find that the approach is not, in fact, working well, we will consider whether more needs to be done, including looking at the case for taking action on fees. The review will be carried out later this year. In the meantime, the Government’s position is that a ban or cap on letting agent fees would be disproportionate, probably pushing up rents without benefiting either landlords or tenants.
My hon. Friend made a request about having statutory tenancies longer than the usual six or 12-month ones. As I said at the outset, the average tenancy is sustained for a period of four years, and the Government are not currently looking to change that. My hon. Friend will know, I am sure, that the model tenancies brought forward by the Government over the past few years have been extremely successful and have been adopted by many letting agents.
My hon. Friend mentioned tougher penalties. When we look at the review, I am sure that that issue will be considered, too. My hon. Friend knows—she served on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee—that there are significant penalties for rogue landlords and rogue letting agents. Civil penalties of up to £30,000 exist as a deterrent to them, and as my hon. Friend mentioned, that sum can be kept by local authorities to assist them with further enforcement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I hope that my response this evening has reassured her that the Government take extremely seriously the issues she has set out for us. Following a review later this year, we will consider whether more needs to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.